Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.

Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.

For three months Assange had been waiting in vain to hear whether media statements by and for the two female “victims” that there was no fear or violence were going to be embellished so the charges might be carried forward due to greater seriousness. Such statements would stop a rape charge in any Western country dead in its tracks. Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. You can rape someone by deluding them into thinking you are someone else or by drugging them or by reason of their young age but essentially it’s a crime of violence.

The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Far from it. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.

That further evidence hasn’t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.

But then neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police but rather “sought advice”, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints. They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other’s evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them. You can see Wilén on the YouTube video of the event even now.

Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes Borgström was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. Borgström’s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. “They (the women) are not jurists”. You need a law degree to know whether you have been raped or not in Sweden. In the context of such double think, the question of how the Swedish authorities propose to deal with victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You’re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn’t understand anyway. The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.

Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange’s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution “Development Unit” could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange’s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for it. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.

A great deal more damning evidence is yet to be revealed about what passes for legal process in Sweden, such as Assange’s lawyers having not received a single official document until November 18, 2010 (and then in Swedish language contrary to European Law) and having to learn about the status of investigations through prosecution media announcements but make no mistake: it is not Julian Assange that is on trial here but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law.

*James D. Catlin is a Melbourne barrister who acted for Julian Assange in London during October.

I'll just add, for Londoners and others not far off, there is a demo outside the Ecuadorian Embassy later on today (Thursday 19 June) for the 2nd Anniversary of Julian Assange's refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy (see 'Calendar' for details).
SHAME on the UK Government lickspittles for their craven bowing to US Diktats, as well as their bowing down to 'Moloch' (or 'Lucifer', 'Jah-Bul-On' or whatever other 'hat' Satan chooses to wear).
Odd, isn't it: the US can demand someone's extradition from the UK, but 'Great' Britain cannot demand extradition of someone from the States (something to do with 'Exceptionalism').
We'll see how far their 'Exceptionalism' goes on Judgement Day!!!
_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

For me, the most important point at yesterday’s trial was about disclosure. The defence was applying to see the hundreds of texts from and between Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen in the possession of the prosecution, including texts they sent when at the police station making their complaint.

Now in every other legal system I know, those would have to be shown to the defence. Weirdly, in this case they were shown briefly to defence lawyers, but they were not allowed to have copies or write anything down. What on earth can be the purpose of that? Can anybody explain to me any principle of law that might explain why defence lawyers should be allowed very quickly to read them but not have copies or ever see them again?
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/07/stockholm-syndrome/_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

For me, the most important point at yesterday’s trial was about disclosure. The defence was applying to see the hundreds of texts from and between Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen in the possession of the prosecution, including texts they sent when at the police station making their complaint.

Now in every other legal system I know, those would have to be shown to the defence. Weirdly, in this case they were shown briefly to defence lawyers, but they were not allowed to have copies or write anything down. What on earth can be the purpose of that? Can anybody explain to me any principle of law that might explain why defence lawyers should be allowed very quickly to read them but not have copies or ever see them again?
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/07/stockholm-syndrome/

I found this very interesting comment on Craig's article:

comment by:

YouKnowMyName

17 Jul, 2014 - 2:00 pm

a possible opinion is that the soft assassination – the current predicament of Mendax – is fortunately an overt case of strategic paralysis (from a USAF theory of total dominance information warfare in the 1990′s, the author John Warden was a Strategist at the Directorate of Warfighting Concepts, his MILITARY technology is now obviously capable of being aimed at the CITIZEN)

I say ‘fortunately’ above as we are aware of it, it would be worse would this be happening covertly.

In fact, has the legal system in the UK/Sweden got any idea what the Snowden allegations mean for modern justice, in this time of admitted high-bandwidth information warfare? …on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt…

From GCHQ TOOLS AND POTENTIAL MISUSES

Here are the actual dirty tricks in the British spy agencies toolkit, with hypothetical examples of potential misuses …

CHANGELING: Ability to spoof any email address and send email under that identity. Fake an email from a privacy advocate to make it look like he’s proposing terrorism
SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE: Perfect spoofing of emails from Blackberry targets. Fake an email from an opponent of bank bailouts to make it look like she’s proposing bombing a bank
BURLESQUE: The capacity to send spoofed SMS messages. Fake a message from an an anti-war pacifist to make it look like he’s advocating sabotage of a military base
IMPERIAL BARGE : For connecting two target phone together in a call. Fake a telephone connection to make it look like an opponent of genetically modified foods spoke with a leader of Al Qaeda
BADGER : Mass delivery of email messaging to support an Information Operations campaign. Send out a fake, mass email pretending to be from a whistleblower “admitting” that he’s mentally unstable, disgruntled, dishonest and vindictive
WARPATH: Mass delivery of SMS messages to support an Information Operations campaign. Send out a fake, mass message pretending to be from a whistleblower “admitting” he’s a Russian spy
SPACE ROCKET: A programme covering insertion of media into target networks. Insert a fake video calling for jihad on a the website of a moderate American Muslim lawyer
CLEAN SWEEP Masquerade Facebook Wall Posts for individuals or entire countries. Put up a bunch of fake wall posts praising the Islamic State on the Facebook page of a reporter giving first-hand reports of what’s really happening in a country that the U.S. has targeted for regime change
HAVOK Real-time website cloning technique allowing on-the-fly alterations. Hack the website of a state politician critical of those who ignore the Constitution and post fake calls for terrorism against Washington, D.C
SILVERLORD: Disruption of video-based websites hosting extremist content through concerted target discovery and content removal. Disrupt websites hosting videos espousing libertarian views
SUNBLOCK: Ability to deny functionality to send/receive email or view material online. Block the emails and web functionality of a government insider who is about to go public on wrongdoing
ANGRY PIRATE: A tool that will permanently disable a target’s account on their computer. Disable the accounts of an activist working for clean food and water
PREDATORS FACE: Targeted Denial Of Service against Web Servers. Take down a website which is disclosing hard-hitting information on illegal government actions
…Ad nauseam..

Filed Under: World, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Google, Eric Schmidt
In June 2011, Julian Assange received an unusual visitor: the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, arrived from America at Ellingham Hall, the country house in Norfolk, England where Assange was living under house arrest.

For several hours the besieged leader of the world’s most famous insurgent publishing organization and the billionaire head of the world’s largest information empire locked horns. The two men debated the political problems faced by society, and the technological solutions engendered by the global network—from the Arab Spring to Bitcoin.

They outlined radically opposing perspectives: for Assange, the liberating power of the Internet is based on its freedom and statelessness. For Schmidt, emancipation is at one with U.S. foreign policy objectives and is driven by connecting non-Western countries to Western companies and markets. These differences embodied a tug-of-war over the Internet’s future that has only gathered force subsequently.

Newsweek Magazine is Back In Print

In this extract from When Google Met WikiLeaks Assange describes his encounter with Schmidt and how he came to conclude that it was far from an innocent exchange of views.

Eric Schmidt is an influential figure, even among the parade of powerful characters with whom I have had to cross paths since I founded WikiLeaks. In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, England, about three hours’ drive northeast of London. The crackdown against our work was in full swing and every wasted moment seemed like an eternity. It was hard to get my attention.

But when my colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google wanted to make an appointment with me, I was listening.

In some ways the higher echelons of Google seemed more distant and obscure to me than the halls of Washington. We had been locking horns with senior U.S. officials for years by that point. The mystique had worn off. But the power centers growing up in Silicon Valley were still opaque and I was suddenly conscious of an opportunity to understand and influence what was becoming the most influential company on earth. Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire.

I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me.

The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.”

I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two U.S. administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties.

He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into U.S. policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.” On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.”

It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.

Later that year two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley technologies as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Describing what they called “coalitions of the connected,” Schmidt and Cohen claimed that:

Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies.…

They offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world [emphasis added].
Schmidt and Cohen said they wanted to interview me. I agreed. A date was set for June.

By the time June came around there was already a lot to talk about. That summer WikiLeaks was still grinding through the release of U.S. diplomatic cables, publishing thousands of them every week. When, seven months earlier, we had first started releasing the cables, Hillary Clinton had denounced the publication as “an attack on the international community” that would “tear at the fabric” of government.

It was into this ferment that Google projected itself that June, touching down at a London airport and making the long drive up into East Anglia to Norfolk and Beccles.

Schmidt arrived first, accompanied by his then partner, Lisa Shields. When he introduced her as a vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations—a U.S. foreign-policy think tank with close ties to the State Department—I thought little more of it. Shields herself was straight out of Camelot, having been spotted by John Kennedy Jr.’s side back in the early 1990s.

They sat with me and we exchanged pleasantries. They said they had forgotten their Dictaphone, so we used mine. We made an agreement that I would forward them the recording and in exchange they would forward me the transcript, to be corrected for accuracy and clarity. We began. Schmidt plunged in at the deep end, straightaway quizzing me on the organizational and technological underpinnings of WikiLeaks.

* * *

Some time later Jared Cohen arrived. With him was Scott Malcomson, introduced as the book’s editor. Three months after the meeting Malcomson would enter the State Department as the lead speechwriter and principal advisor to Susan Rice (then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, now national security advisor).

At this point, the delegation was one part Google, three parts U.S. foreign-policy establishment, but I was still none the wiser. Handshakes out of the way, we got down to business.

Schmidt was a good foil. A late-fiftysomething, squint-eyed behind owlish spectacles, managerially dressed—Schmidt’s dour appearance concealed a machinelike analyticity. His questions often skipped to the heart of the matter, betraying a powerful nonverbal structural intelligence.

It was the same intellect that had abstracted software-engineering principles to scale Google into a megacorp, ensuring that the corporate infrastructure always met the rate of growth. This was a person who understood how to build and maintain systems: systems of information and systems of people. My world was new to him, but it was also a world of unfolding human processes, scale and information flows.

For a man of systematic intelligence, Schmidt’s politics—such as I could hear from our discussion—were surprisingly conventional, even banal. He grasped structural relationships quickly, but struggled to verbalize many of them, often shoehorning geopolitical subtleties into Silicon Valley marketese or the ossified State Department micro-language of his companions. He was at his best when he was speaking (perhaps without realizing it) as an engineer, breaking down complexities into their orthogonal components.

I found Cohen a good listener, but a less interesting thinker, possessed of that relentless conviviality that routinely afflicts career generalists and Rhodes Scholars. As you would expect from his foreign-policy background, Cohen had a knowledge of international flash points and conflicts and moved rapidly between them, detailing different scenarios to test my assertions. But it sometimes felt as if he was riffing on orthodoxies in a way that was designed to impress his former colleagues in official Washington.

Malcomson, older, was more pensive, his input thoughtful and generous. Shields was quiet for much of the conversation, taking notes, humoring the bigger egos around the table while she got on with the real work.

As the interviewee, I was expected to do most of the talking. I sought to guide them into my worldview. To their credit, I consider the interview perhaps the best I have given. I was out of my comfort zone and I liked it.

We ate and then took a walk in the grounds, all the while on the record. I asked Eric Schmidt to leak U.S. government information requests to WikiLeaks, and he refused, suddenly nervous, citing the illegality of disclosing Patriot Act requests. And then, as the evening came on, it was done and they were gone, back to the unreal, remote halls of information empire, and I was left to get back to my work.

That was the end of it, or so I thought.

* * *

Two months later, WikiLeaks’ release of State Department cables was coming to an abrupt end. For three-quarters of a year we had painstakingly managed the publication, pulling in over a hundred global media partners, distributing documents in their regions of influence and overseeing a worldwide, systematic publication and redaction system, fighting for maximum impact for our sources.

But The Guardian newspaper—our former partner—had published the confidential decryption password to all 251,000 cables in a chapter heading in its book, rushed out hastily in February 2011.

By mid-August we discovered that a former German employee—whom I had suspended in 2010—was cultivating business relationships with a variety of organizations and individuals by shopping around the location of the encrypted file, paired with the password’s whereabouts in the book. At the rate the information was spreading, we estimated that within two weeks most intelligence agencies, contractors and middlemen would have all the cables, but the public would not.

I decided it was necessary to bring forward our publication schedule by four months and contact the State Department to get it on record that we had given them advance warning. The situation would then be harder to spin into another legal or political assault.

Unable to raise Louis Susman, then U.S. ambassador to the U.K., we tried the front door. WikiLeaks investigations editor Sarah Harrison called the State Department front desk and informed the operator that “Julian Assange” wanted to have a conversation with Hillary Clinton. Predictably, this statement was initially greeted with bureaucratic disbelief.

We soon found ourselves in a reenactment of that scene in Dr. Strangelove, where Peter Sellers cold-calls the White House to warn of an impending nuclear war and is immediately put on hold. As in the film, we climbed the hierarchy, speaking to incrementally more superior officials until we reached Clinton’s senior legal advisor. He told us he would call us back. We hung up, and waited.

When the phone rang half an hour later, it was not the State Department on the other end of the line. Instead, it was Joseph Farrell, the WikiLeaks staffer who had set up the meeting with Google. He had just received an email from Lisa Shields seeking to confirm that it was indeed WikiLeaks calling the State Department.

It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, D.C., including a well-documented relationship with President Obama. Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel.

While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch. Two years later, in the wake of his early 2013 visits to China, North Korea and Burma, it would come to be appreciated that the chairman of Google might be conducting, in one way or another, “back-channel diplomacy” for Washington. But at the time it was a novel thought.

I put it aside until February 2012, when WikiLeaks—along with over thirty of our international media partners—began publishing the Global Intelligence Files: the internal email spool from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. One of our stronger investigative partners—the Beirut-based newspaper Al Akhbar— scoured the emails for intelligence on Jared Cohen.

The people at Stratfor, who liked to think of themselves as a sort of corporate CIA, were acutely conscious of other ventures that they perceived as making inroads into their sector. Google had turned up on their radar. In a series of colorful emails they discussed a pattern of activity conducted by Cohen under the Google Ideas aegis, suggesting what the “do” in “think/do tank” actually means.

Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and “corporate responsibility” work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s “director of regime change.”

According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky.

10_23_wikileaks-01
Founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange speaking from the Ecuadorean embassy in London appears on a screen as he gives a video conference to open the Human Rights Film Festival in Barcelona on October 22, 2014. Quique Garcia/AFP/Getty

Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to “engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,” as part of a Google Ideas’ project on “repressive societies.” In internal emails Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton (himself a former State Department security official), wrote:

Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do…

[Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the *-bag.
In further internal communication, Burton said his sources on Cohen’s activities were Marty Lev—Google’s director of security and safety—and Eric Schmidt himself.

Looking for something more concrete, I began to search in WikiLeaks’ archive for information on Cohen. State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases. In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.” And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood.

Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the “Save Summit,” an event co-sponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists and “religious extremists” from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of “violent extremism.” What could go wrong?

Cohen’s world seems to be one event like this after another: endless soirees for the cross-fertilization of influence between elites and their vassals, under the pious rubric of “civil society.” The received wisdom in advanced capitalist societies is that there still exists an organic “civil society sector” in which institutions form autonomously and come together to manifest the interests and will of citizens. The fable has it that the boundaries of this sector are respected by actors from government and the “private sector,” leaving a safe space for NGOs and nonprofits to advocate for things like human rights, free speech and accountable government.

This sounds like a great idea. But if it was ever true, it has not been for decades. Since at least the 1970s, authentic actors like unions and churches have folded under a sustained assault by free-market statism, transforming “civil society” into a buyer’s market for political factions and corporate interests looking to exert influence at arm’s length. The last forty years have seen a huge proliferation of think tanks and political NGOs whose purpose, beneath all the verbiage, is to execute political agendas by proxy.

It is not just obvious neocon front groups like Foreign Policy Initiative. It also includes fatuous Western NGOs like Freedom House, where naïve but well-meaning career nonprofit workers are twisted in knots by political funding streams, denouncing non-Western human rights violations while keeping local abuses firmly in their blind spots.

The civil society conference circuit—which flies developing-world activists across the globe hundreds of times a year to bless the unholy union between “government and private stakeholders” at geopoliticized events like the “Stockholm Internet Forum”—simply could not exist if it were not blasted with millions of dollars in political funding annually.

Scan the memberships of the biggest U.S. think tanks and institutes and the same names keep cropping up. Cohen’s Save Summit went on to seed AVE, or AgainstViolentExtremism.org, a long-term project whose principal backer besides Google Ideas is the Gen Next Foundation. This foundation’s website says it is an “exclusive membership organization and platform for successful individuals” that aims to bring about “social change” driven by venture capital funding. Gen Next’s “private sector and non-profit foundation support avoids some of the potential perceived conflicts of interest faced by initiatives funded by governments.” Jared Cohen is an executive member.

Gen Next also backs an NGO, launched by Cohen toward the end of his State Department tenure, for bringing Internet-based global “pro-democracy activists” into the U.S. foreign relations patronage network. The group originated as the “Alliance of Youth Movements” with an inaugural summit in New York City in 2008 funded by the State Department and encrusted with the logos of corporate sponsors. The summit flew in carefully selected social media activists from “problem areas” like Venezuela and Cuba to watch speeches by the Obama campaign’s new-media team and the State Department’s James Glassman, and to network with public relations consultants, “philanthropists,” and U.S. media personalities.

The outfit held two more invite-only summits in London and Mexico City where the delegates were directly addressed via video link by Hillary Clinton:

You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists.…

And that makes you the kind of leaders we need.
In 2011, the Alliance of Youth Movements rebranded as “Movements.org.” In 2012 Movements.org became a division of “Advancing Human Rights,” a new NGO set up by Robert L. Bernstein after he resigned from Human Rights Watch (which he had originally founded) because he felt it should not cover Israeli and U.S. human rights abuses. Advancing Human Rights aims to right Human Rights Watch’s wrong by focusing exclusively on “dictatorships.”

Cohen stated that the merger of his Movements.org outfit with Advancing Human Rights was “irresistible,” pointing to the latter’s “phenomenal network of cyber-activists in the Middle East and North Africa.” He then joined the Advancing Human Rights board, which also includes Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in occupied Afghanistan. In its present guise, Movements.org continues to receive funding from Gen Next, as well as from Google, MSNBC and PR giant Edelman, which represents General Electric, Boeing, and Shell, among others.

Google Ideas is bigger, but it follows the same game plan. Glance down the speaker lists of its annual invite-only get-togethers, such as “Crisis in a Connected World” in October 2013. Social network theorists and activists give the event a veneer of authenticity, but in truth it boasts a toxic piñata of attendees: U.S. officials, telecom magnates, security consultants, finance capitalists and foreign-policy tech vultures like Alec Ross (Cohen’s twin at the State Department).

At the hard core are the arms contractors and career military: active U.S. Cyber Command chieftains, and even the admiral responsible for all U.S. military operations in Latin America from 2006 to 2009. Tying up the package are Jared Cohen and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt.

I began to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very U.S. foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington—a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma.

I was wrong.

* * *

Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury. He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton.

In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983. By the time he left Sun, sixteen years later, he had become part of its executive leadership.

Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.

By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.

By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.

It was also in 1999 that Schmidt joined the board of a Washington, D.C.–based group: the New America Foundation, a merger of well-connected centrist forces (in D.C. terms). The foundation and its 100 staff serve as an influence mill, using its network of approved national security, foreign policy and technology pundits to place hundreds of articles and op-eds per year.

By 2008, Schmidt had become chairman of its board of directors. As of 2013 the New America Foundation’s principal funders (each contributing over $1 million) were listed as Eric and Wendy Schmidt, the U.S. State Department and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Secondary funders include Google, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Radio Free Asia.

Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus. The foundation’s other board members, seven of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement; Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama; Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros; Walter Russell Mead, a U.S. security strategist and editor of the American Interest; Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and Daniel Yergin, oil geo-strategist, former chair of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Task Force.

The chief executive of the foundation, appointed in 2013, is Jared Cohen’s former boss at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert U.S. forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China. Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within U.S. establishment networks of reputation and influence.

On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google’s chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life.

By all appearances, Google’s bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem.

* * *

Google is different. Google is visionary. Google is the future. Google is more than just a company. Google gives back to the community. Google is a force for good.

Even when Google airs its corporate ambivalence publicly, it does little to dislodge these items of faith. The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under 6 billion times each day, 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history.

Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the U.S. intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its “don’t be evil” doublespeak. A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies.

Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community.

In 2003, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.”

During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.

In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup co-funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts.

In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the U.S. military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.”

In 2010, after the Chinese government was accused of hacking Google, the company entered into a “formal information-sharing” relationship with the NSA, which was said to allow NSA analysts to “evaluate vulnerabilities” in Google’s hardware and software. Although the exact contours of the deal have never been disclosed, the NSA brought in other government agencies to help, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.” Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF.

Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: “General Keith…so great to see you…!” Schmidt wrote. But most reports over-looked a crucial detail. “Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” Alexander wrote to Brin, “are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.”

The Department of Homeland Security defines the Defense Industrial Base as “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements [emphasis added].” The Defense Industrial Base provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.”
Does it include regular commercial services purchased by the U.S. military? No. The definition specifically excludes the purchase of regular commercial services. Whatever makes Google a “key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” it is not recruitment campaigns pushed out through Google AdWords or soldiers checking their Gmail.

In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, D.C., lobbyists—a list typically stalked exclusively by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petro-carbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million.

In autumn 2013 the Obama administration was trying to drum up support for U.S. airstrikes against Syria. Despite setbacks, the administration continued to press for military action well into September with speeches and public announcements by both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. On September 10, Google lent its front page—the most popular on the Internet—to the war effort, inserting a line below the search box reading “Live! Secretary Kerry answers questions on Syria. Today via Hangout at 2pm ET.”

As the self-described “radical centrist” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote in 1999, sometimes it is not enough to leave the global dominance of American tech corporations to something as mercurial as “the free market”:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
If anything has changed since those words were written, it is that Silicon Valley has grown restless with that passive role, aspiring instead to adorn the hidden fist like a velvet glove. Writing in 2013, Schmidt and Cohen stated,

What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first.
One way of looking at it is that it’s just business. For an American Internet services monopoly to ensure global market dominance, it cannot simply keep doing what it is doing and let politics take care of itself. American strategic and economic hegemony becomes a vital pillar of its market dominance. What’s a megacorp to do? If it wants to straddle the world, it must become part of the original “don’t be evil” empire.

But part of the resilient image of Google as “more than just a company” comes from the perception that it does not act like a big, bad corporation. Its penchant for luring people into its services trap with gigabytes of “free storage” produces the perception that Google is giving it away for free, acting directly contrary to the corporate profit motive.

Google is perceived as an essentially philanthropic enterprise—a magical engine presided over by otherworldly visionaries—for creating a utopian future. The company has at times appeared anxious to cultivate this image, pouring funding into “corporate responsibility” initiatives to produce “social change”—exemplified by Google Ideas.

But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of U.S. influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass.

Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and Internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend Internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.

If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe—for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.

Extracted from When Google Met Wikileaks by Julian Assange published by OR Books. Newsweek readers can obtain a 20 percent discount on the cover price when ordering from the OR Books website and including the offer code word NEWSWEEK._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Disregard for UN ruling on Julian Assange's detention will be a blow to human rights
February 7, 2016 - 18 reading nowRead later
Sweden and Britain ignore the UN's landmark opinion on the detention of Julian Assange at their peril, writes Melinda Taylor.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/disregard-for-un-ruling-on-assanges-det ention-a-blow-to-human-rights-20160207-gmnlsp.html
Julian Assange, pictured on the balcony of Ecuador's London embassy, with the UN report that says he is being 'arbitrarily detained' by Britain and Sweden. Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth
In September 2014, Julian Assange filed a complaint against Sweden and Britain with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD).

In a landmark opinion issued on February 5, 2016, WGAD upheld Assange’s complaint that he is a victim of illegal and arbitrary detention, and thereby dispelled the myths that Assange chooses to remain in the Embassy or that he is a fugitive from justice.

This opinion is a victory not only for Assange, but for the right of whistle-blowers everywhere to be protected from persecution, and for the victims who benefit from their work.

WGAD affirmed that Assange had been detained continuously for more than five years: first in isolation in a prison, then under house arrest, and finally, under Embassy arrest which was comprised of continuous confinement and police surveillance.

Regarding the latter, WGAD further found that this "gilded cage" lacked the basic amenities required to satisfy the minimum rights of detainees, such as access to appropriate medical facilities and treatment.

The report said this had placed Assange’s health at “serious risk”. Assange did not choose to be detained in this manner. In February 2012, the Special Rapporteur on Torture issued findings that Chelsea Manning had been subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment in the United States while being interrogated in relation to Assange and Wikileaks.

There were also concrete indicia that the United States was conducting a full-blown investigation into Assange, and was engaged in discussions with Sweden regarding his future extradition to the US.

Assange therefore requested Ecuador to afford him protection from the well-founded risk that he would be subjected to persecution and cruel and inhumane treatment if extradited to the US.

After a thorough consideration of the application, Ecuador granted Assange asylum under the terms of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Sweden and Britain have ratified this convention, but both refused to either recognise Assange’s asylum status, or provide him with assurances against refoulement to the US.

As a result, Assange was faced with an impossible catch-22; if he stayed in the Embassy, he could be detained indefinitely, but if he left he would be the next victim of the US’ war on whistle-blowers.

This risk of refoulement to the US formed the prison bars which kept him detained. In a damning indictment of the manner in which Sweden and Britain handled this situation, WGAD underscored Assange’s continued willingness to co-operate with the Swedish investigations during all stages of the procedure, and concluded that he is in fact a victim of a significant miscarriage of justice.

Concretely, for over five years, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to question Assange in Sweden, London or the embassy, and refused to provide him with access to the case file.

Assange was, as a result, denied the right to clear his name, and to dispel the cloud of suspicion which has been unfairly fanned by the high profile nature of this case. This contravened the presumption of innocence, and his right to have the uncharged allegations investigated fairly, impartially and expeditiously.

In light of these findings, WGAD upheld Assange’s complaint that he is arbitrarily detained. WGAD further recognised that Assange should not have to sacrifice his right to liberty in order to enjoy protection from torture: Sweden and Britain were requested to ensure his safety, protection and his right to freedom of movement.

In an important recognition of the fact that Assange has been a victim of this process, WGAD further ordered Britain and Sweden to accord him an enforceable right to compensation.

Of course, financial compensation can never bring back the time that Assange has lost with his family, but it may provide a powerful incentive for Sweden and Britain to implement the findings now, rather than later, given that the potential costs will continue to mount.

Such incentives are important given that Britain's foreign secretary came out swinging, with claims that Britain has no obligation to comply with the “ridiculous” finding, issued by “laypersons”.

The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

This response is of course disappointing, but it is also untenable. Political posturing cannot and should not prevail over a detailed, impartial assessment based on facts and law.

Britain and Sweden cannot simply ignore WGAD’s findings because it is them in the dock, or because they disagree with Assange’s whistleblowing activities.

The system of international human rights law established by the United Nations Charter serves to protect the rights of all persons, weak and strong, throughout the world.

Their disregard for this decision would only serve to diminish this system of protection, and weaken the rights of victims everywhere. Of course, today it is Assange – an antipodean who challenges authority – but tomorrow, if it is someone from England or Sweden locked up illegally, what authority will Sweden and Britain have to demand their release?

Arbitrary detention is also a grave international crime, akin to torture and cruel and inhumane treatment.

If Britain and Sweden intentionally continue this crime, they may have more to worry about then financial sanctions.

Sweden has been internationally recognized in the past as a leading country on matters of human rights and respect of individual’s political and civil rights. At its peak, the ethical stature of the late PM Olof Palme positioned the government of Sweden in the chairmanship of a variety of international bodies for world peace and for prominent participation in the non-aligned movement.

After the assassination of Olof Palme, which took place in the middle of an ad-hominem campaign driven by the Swedish press, a successive series of government initiated by Carl Bildt, and successively Göran Person and (Justice) Tomas Bodström, have transformed the independent stances of Sweden. The nation’s exemplar non-alignment was subsequently abandoned and has instead been converted into a geopolitical instrument of the US government, and a close partner with NATO – including the military assistance or direct participation in occupation wars. Further, the human-rights ideal that was once paramount to Sweden’s international policy was definitively buried by Carl Bildt’s period as ruler of Sweden’s foreign affairs. In consensus Sweden, the governments and monopoly media ultimately replace the citizens’ political initiative. Eventually, even the so-called Swedish Left Party, in which “radical-feminism” is a predominant factor, had no problem in voting in parliament for Bildt’s proposition on Sweden’s military participation in Libya under US-command. Those are the political forces behind Sweden’s today rejection of the UN-ruling declaring Mr Assange’s detention arbitrary.

The following determinant factor in the Assange case has to be also understood in the context of the military occupation of Afghanistan pursued by Swedish troops, under US-command. The US government asked in August 2010 the few EU nations participating under their military command in Afghanistan to initiate the prosecution of Julian Assange. WikiLeaks had published documents related to US military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the wars there and published evidence that supported accusations of war crimes. Further, WikiLeaks exposed the secret Intel cooperation agreements (illegal in Sweden) between the Swedish government and the US, which entails providing to US private information gathered on Swedish citizens. Sweden was the only country among those integrated into the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that complied.

However, after nearly six years, all the main deceptions in the “legal” prosecution initiated by Sweden against Mr Assange are now widely exposed. These are the facts:

1. Mr Assange has never been charged with any crime, neither in Sweden nor elsewhere.
2. No woman has ever accused Mr Assange of rape; rather, “suspicion of rape” was a characterization constructed by the Swedish police (in Sweden, an institution under the Ministry of Justice). The women declared their reason for going to the police was to seek help to compel Mr Assange to undergo a HIV test.
3. Simultaneously, the Swedish media – contrary to a principled rule in Sweden – rushed to cable to the world that “The founder of WikiLeaks (with name) Julian Assange” was arrested, charged of rape in Sweden”. This claim was not accurate. Despite it being forbidden in Sweden to publish the name of a person who has not been yet convicted, the Swedish media involved in this transgression was never disciplined.
4. Chief-prosecutor Eva Finné immediately dismissed the accusations put forward in the police report after she examined the case.
5. The leading woman (of the two scheduled to visit to the police station) was a personal friend of the police officer who performed the interviews and interrogations. This police officer – also a member of the social democratic party the complain belongs to – was in turn a public supporter of the lawyer-politician Claes Borgström, of the law-firm Bodström & Börgström (both at the time members of the same social democratic party).
6. The case was reopened at the initiative of the said law-firm Bordström & Börgström, the law-firm that also “defended” the women – as declared by the main partner, Tomas Bodström, at the timer a resident of Virginia, USA.
7. The ‘woman accuser’, a former Swedish embassy employee elsewhere, had been expelled from Cuba on charges of activities on behalf of the CIA.
8. The same ‘leading woman’ was at the time political secretary of the “Brotherhood” (a small organization within the Swedish Social Democratic Party) where Justice Thomas Bodström was a principal member.
9. As Justice Minister, Bodström was a principal actor from the Swedish government in implementing CIA operations in Sweden – done in secret and against Swedish law (e.g. the secret rendition to CIA of refugees in Sweden, where Bodstrom has been indicated as the responsible official from the part of the Swedish government).
10. The initiative to open the case was taken by a selected prosecutor, Ms Marianne Ny, at the behest of the same Bodström & Borgström law-firm. Ny, Bodström and Borgström had previously shared governmental committees to study further enhancing of the radical-feminist legislation on sex crimes.

All these irregularities are a backdrop against which the recent UNWGAD ruling on Mr Assange’s arbitrary detention should be considered. Nevertheless, on the strict juridical issue of Mr Assange detention, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) had already on April 5, 2015, issued the public appeal, “According to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Assange’s detention should be ended”. The statement, originally published in NewsVoice and Research & Reports, argued that:

“Even a high-standard democratic country as Sweden can in the long run risks a disastrous condemnation upon its government, by the international community as a whole, for the management of the case Assange. For instance, the extreme intervals and deferral in the Swedish managing of the case have ostensibly evolved in infringement of Article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the United Nations (ICCPR). [1] This international-law pledge, of which Sweden is a signatory, stipulates that all individuals under prosecution investigation – even if they are only “detained” and thus, even if they are not being charged with any crime – as it is the case of Mr Assange – “shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.”

We are profoundly satisfied with the ruling of UNWGAD of February 5, 2016, on the true juridical status of the detention of Mr Assange; a verdict that also fully confirms the afore-mentioned SWEDHR’s statement of April 5, 2015.

A series of notable world organizations and personalities have now added their support, strong and sharply, to the UNWGAD ruling on the Assange case. To mention just a few: Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc.

Swedish authorities have replied that they won’t recognize the UNWGAD ruling on this flawed case. Nevertheless, in spite the efforts of the Swedish government and media of omitting any reference to Sweden’s human-rights violations that, in fact, the UNWGAD ruling is about, the international community will – rightly – further condemn Sweden as a government with less and less self-dignity, ready to implement the errands of superpower USA in detriment of Sweden’s own sovereignty, international prestige, and national security.

Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD

Chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)

SWEDHR is the only Sweden-based NGO for human rights totally independent and not sponsored by the Swedish government. Previous statements by the organization have been referred by the Swedish Medical Journal (Läkartidningen), Dagens Medicin, France Press, Sputnik International, Wikipedia, and other international media.

1. Mr Assange has never been charged with any crime, neither in Sweden nor elsewhere.
2. No woman has ever accused Mr Assange of rape; rather, “suspicion of rape” was a characterization constructed by the Swedish police (in Sweden, an institution under the Ministry of Justice). The women declared their reason for going to the police was to seek help to compel Mr Assange to undergo a HIV test.
3. Simultaneously, the Swedish media – contrary to a principled rule in Sweden – rushed to cable to the world that “The founder of WikiLeaks (with name) Julian Assange” was arrested, charged of rape in Sweden”. This claim was not accurate. Despite it being forbidden in Sweden to publish the name of a person who has not been yet convicted, the Swedish media involved in this transgression was never disciplined.
4. Chief-prosecutor Eva Finné immediately dismissed the accusations put forward in the police report after she examined the case.
5. The leading woman (of the two scheduled to visit to the police station) was a personal friend of the police officer who performed the interviews and interrogations. This police officer – also a member of the social democratic party the complain belongs to – was in turn a public supporter of the lawyer-politician Claes Borgström, of the law-firm Bodström & Börgström (both at the time members of the same social democratic party).
6. The case was reopened at the initiative of the said law-firm Bordström & Börgström, the law-firm that also “defended” the women – as declared by the main partner, Tomas Bodström, at the timer a resident of Virginia, USA.
7. The ‘woman accuser’, a former Swedish embassy employee elsewhere, had been expelled from Cuba on charges of activities on behalf of the CIA.
8. The same ‘leading woman’ was at the time political secretary of the “Brotherhood” (a small organization within the Swedish Social Democratic Party) where Justice Thomas Bodström was a principal member.
9. As Justice Minister, Bodström was a principal actor from the Swedish government in implementing CIA operations in Sweden – done in secret and against Swedish law (e.g. the secret rendition to CIA of refugees in Sweden, where Bodstrom has been indicated as the responsible official from the part of the Swedish government).
10. The initiative to open the case was taken by a selected prosecutor, Ms Marianne Ny, at the behest of the same Bodström & Borgström law-firm. Ny, Bodström and Borgström had previously shared governmental committees to study further enhancing of the radical-feminist legislation on sex crimes.

'Before the 31st United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva today, 500 human rights organizations, law professors, former UN office holders, and high-profile rights defenders including four Nobel Peace Prize winners have urged the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to respect the United Nations’ decision to free Julian Assange. The statement was delivered to the Swedish and UK Permanent Representatives to the United Nations in Geneva.

—
“We the undersigned, including legal and human rights organisations, academics, and policymakers condemn the reactions of the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to the finding by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained.

The governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom are setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the United Nations Human Rights system as a whole. We urge Sweden and the United Kingdom to respect the binding nature of the human rights covenants on which the decision is based, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the independence, integrity and authority of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

We therefore call on the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to comply without further delay with the Working Group’s findings and “ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
—

Signatories include
•more than 500 high profile signatories from more than 60 countries
•more than 100 human & legal rights organizations including 16 national associations of lawyers and jurists
•50 international law professors, former judges and jurists
•4 Nobel Peace Prize winners
•25 Freedom of expression organizations including Reporters Without Borders, the EFF and The Freedom of the Press Foundation.
•The immediately former UN Special Rapporteur for Arbitrary Detention Mads Adenas and five other former UN Special Rapporteurs, Experts and Working Group Chairs.
•The cities of Madrid & Barcelona
•Activists: Ai Wei Wei, Pussy Riot, Naomi Klein & Arundhati Roy
•Over 100 academics from 65 universities

Full list of signatures below. (go to link)_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

In December 2010 a close collaboration between Sweden and the CIA and FBI was exposed in the international media: an intelligence collaboration between Sweden and US agencies that was kept secret from the Swedish public, and even from the Swedish Parliament. [1] CIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperationThe Telegraph credited WikiLeaks for exposing the deal. [2] The revelations caused far more commotion internationally than in Sweden and, in any event, no government officials were ever held accountable for it. The Washington Post reported, quoting a Swedish Parliamentary investigation: “Although the Parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved ‘extremely grave criticism’ for losing control of the operation and for being ‘remarkably submissive to the American officials,’ no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.” [3]

This article explores to what extent intelligence collaboration between Swedish and US security agencies might have relevance to, or direct intervention in, the political case of Sweden vs Assange. [4]

Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), one of Sweden’s leading newspapers, has now revealed that a well-known journalist and ‘left activist’ – who, among other things, exerted considerable influence with Amnesty International Sweden – was a paid agent of Sweden’s Security Police (SÄPO). [5]

The government security agent, Martin Fredriksson, was mainly active during the years that former Foreign Minister Carl Bildt was dictating Sweden’s foreign policy, when the “Assange Affair” was widely publicized on the home page of Sweden’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to statements Fredriksson posted on Twitter, his “work” at SÄPO covered different periods between 2004 and 2010, the year Sweden opened its ‘investigation’ against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The Swedish media establishment awarded this SÄPO secret agent its highest investigative journalism prize, ‘Guldspaden’ (Golden Spade), in 2014. The rationale on which the award was given to Fredriksson referred precisely to the work he had implemented as a paid agent of Sweden’s Secret Police. [6] In the photo below, at the centre of the group, the ex-Security Police agent Martin Fredriksson.

guldspaden fredriksson 2014

The former SÄPO agent was significantly involved in the government’s efforts to ensure that the Swedish section of Amnesty International (for brevity, hereafter called Amnesty Sweden) would not advocate for the Swedish government to issue guarantees against the onward extradition of Julian Assange to the US, as called for by Amnesty International, Amnesty Sweden’s parent organization headquartered in London. [7]

In an email sent to Amnesty Sweden on 27 September 2012, Fredriksson asked a representative of Amnesty Sweden, Bobby Vellucci:

“Would Amnesty Sweden endorse the statement of Amnesty International on Assange? Meaning, that Sweden should issue guarantees that he shall not be extradited to the US? Should you not contact your mother organization (AI) and inform them that the Swedish legal system does not issue any promises or guarantees in advance, that the judiciary is independent of political decisions and that, practically, there are no legal possibilities to give Mr Assange any kind of amnesty towards the United States? …In my view, Assange first shall be handled for the crimes he is suspected of in Sweden, and according to the existing law.” [8]

The content, even the phrasing, of Fredriksson’s message to Amnesty Sweden is nearly identical to remarks made in an interview just weeks before by the Swedish Foreign Minister at the time, Carl Bildt. [9]

Amnesty Sweden complied immediately, and fully, with Fredriksson’s request. The following day (28 September) Bobby Vellucci declared in The Local:

“We do not consider it to be appropriate or possible to ask the Swedish government to give guarantees ensuring Assange is not extradited to the US.” And he added, “Amnesty’s primary focus is the Swedish preliminary investigation and that Julian Assange’s presence in Sweden would of course assist in the further investigation of the charges against him.” [10]

By using the word “charges” instead of “accusations”, Amnesty Sweden was further misleading the international public on the actual legal status of the Swedish case against Assange. [4]

It is important to clarify that the above statements by ex-SÄPO agent Fredriksson and Carl Bildt referring to the impossibility of issuing extradition guarantees are complete falsehoods. This was made clear in the filing submitted by Sweden’s Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev to the Supreme Court in March 2015. With regard to the actual facts on the prospective extradition of Assange to the US, see the evidence I recently posted in “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the US“. [11]

Four years later, Amnesty Sweden’s stance on Julian Assange appears to be still under the influence of the Swedish government. In a recent statement to the Swedish news agency TT, the representative of Amnesty Sweden, Madelaine Seidlitz – commenting on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s ruling that he is arbitrarily detained – insisted on reaffirming the Swedish government’s narrative:

“…We also say that it is extremely important that the investigation has to be completed.” [12]

Amnesty Sweden on AssangeIn fact, lawyer Madelaine Seidlitz is the representative given as the contact person for Amnesty Sweden’s press statement arguing against Sweden giving Assange any guarantee against onward extradition, the content of which exactly conforms with former SÄPO agent Fredriksson’s request. The Amnesty Sweden statement [image at right] reads:

“It is neither appropriate nor possible to ask the Swedish government for the issuing of guarantees that Assange shall not be extradited to the US. Amnesty Sweden’s primary focus is the pre-trial investigation and that Julian Assange should be on site in Sweden…”

It’s worth noting that Amnesty Sweden’s statement has been modified several times since its original release and was eventually deleted entirely sometime around February 2016, but cached versions – such as the one reproduced in the image – still exist.

Considering the fact-based risk assessment of the likelihood of Julian Assange’s extradition to the US provided he is physically in custody on Swedish territory, [11] one plausible conclusion – now confirmed by the intervention of SÄPO’s former agent Martin Fredriksson – would be that Amnesty Sweden simply follows the Swedish government’s position, and indirectly, the US government’s design.

Amnesty Sweden – a persistent tendency to deviate from the stance of its parent organization, Amnesty International

After Svd’s expose, Researchgruppen – an organisation headed by Fredriksson that has done a lot of work for feminist media – distanced itself from its former CEO in a statement of 1 March 2016 (See translated excerpt of the statement in Notes & References).[13]

Amnesty Sweden, however, has not said a word.

It is high time for Amnesty International to intervene in this situation to maintain its prestige, both in Sweden and internationally. The Swedish section of Amnesty International has shown a persistent tendency to deviate from the stance of its parent organization – from which Amnesty Sweden derives both funding and prestige – on a variety of important geopolitical issues. That was the case, for instance, in Amnesty Sweden’s scandalous opposition to denouncing the arbitrary and inhuman detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli authorities. [14] Or when Amnesty Sweden’s executive board rejected human rights initiatives proposed at its AGM regarding Assange and Snowden following the persecution both have been subjected to by the US. [15]

Although Amnesty Sweden declares that, in principle, it is totally independent from the Swedish state, it receives government funding for the implementation of projects referred to as “training on Human Rights”. [16] [17] [18]

This is quite contrary to the stance we take in Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR). We believe that a sine qua non factor in a human rights organization’s credibility is total independence from government and corporate funding. [19]

[8] Email translated from its publication in Flashback, a Swedish forum allocating a chapter on the Assange case; this is a thread exhibiting over seven million reader-visits (N= 7 089 375, retrieved 6 March 216). Martin Fredriksson acknowledged the authenticity of the email.message to Amnesty in a post on Twitter done by @Researchgruppen.

The email exchange was first published in the abovementioned forum on the 28 Sept 2012. There it referred the source “http://www.martinfredriksson.net/wik…ange_vs_Sweden” – a link which now appears blind. Here below the screenshot (click on image to enlarge):

“Following the statements and information Martin Fredriksson has given on his Twitter account on February 28, 2016, Researchgruppen wishes to clarify the following: It came as a shock and complete surprise to us when Martin Fredriksson revealed that he was paid over several years by the Security Police…” “Researchgruppen’s position is that any journalism at all times must be free from official interference. Therefore, we are strongly critical of Martin Fredriksson’s actions, and that he concealed his cooperation with the Security Police for us and everyone else.”

Prof-Marcello-Ferrada-de-Noli-4-Jan-2016-no-glasses-redc-Hanna-to-The_ Indicter-644x634Professor Dr med Marcello Ferrada de Noli is chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and Editor-in-Chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues, and other books and essays. Further information at The indicter’s Editorial Board.

Reachable via email at editors@theindicter.com, fdenoli@gmail.com_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

'Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/23/3549280.htm
By Andrew Fowler and Wayne Harley
Updated May 16, 2013 12:05:00
Transcript
Sex, Lies, and Julian Assange - Monday 23 July 2012
KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: He humiliated the most powerful country in the world. But his relationship with two Swedish women, and their claims of sexual assault, may yet destroy Julian Assange.
PER E. SAMUELSON, SWEDISH DEFENCE LAWYER FOR ASSANGE: You shouldn't write such text messages if you had been raped by that person the night before.
CLAES BORGSTROM, LAWYER FOR ANNA ARDIN & SOFIA WILEN: I will not tell any media of how I am going to represent the women in court. I'm sorry.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Sex, lies, the Swedish justice system, the founder of WikiLeaks - and, somewhere in the background, an angry and embarrassed US government. A tangled web indeed. Welcome to Four Corners.
Julian Assange may have suspended his fate at the hands of a Swedish court by claiming political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, but the Swedes are not going away anytime soon. Nor are the British police, who are waiting to arrest him and extradite him to Stockholm the minute he attempts to leave his temporary sanctuary. Assange's troubles in Sweden go back almost exactly two years. The first sensational intelligence of diplomatic leaks had already hit the public domain. In the American government's eyes, Assange had become public enemy number one. But for many others around the world, he was a cause célèbre. But for all their power and influence in the world, they had seemed impotent to stop the leaks, or somehow make Assange pay for what they saw as espionage.
When it emerged that two young Swedish women were pressing charges against him, alleging rape and molestation in somewhat curious circumstances, an extradition proceedings began in the British courts, Assange alleged that America was somehow manipulating the whole process behind the scene, in order to in turn extradite him back to the US to face the judicial music there.
On the assumption that Assange can't wait in his Ecuadorian sanctuary forever, and while we await the outcome of that standoff, Four Corners has gone back to Sweden, where the drama began, to pin down what actually happened there, and take a closer look at the inconsistencies in the various versions of events. Here is Andrew Fowler's report.
ANDREW FOWLER, REPORTER: In late 2009 WikiLeaks set up home in the Iceland capital of Reykjavik. It was a perfect fit. Iceland has world class internet. Its constitution forbids censorship. Julian Assange was made welcome. It was here that Assange received the first leaked cable of the now famous Cablegate documents. It centred on the US embassy in Reykjavik. Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic MP was working with WikiLeaks. She received an invitation to a cocktail party at the Embassy
BIRGITTA JONSDOTTIR, MP, ICELAND: Cocktail parties are mind-numbingly boring, and I only go if I have a reason. So I actually decided... I thought it was sort of funny and I'm a bit of a prankster sometimes, so I decided it would be quite funny for me to go with one of the WikiLeaks people to the Embassy.
ANDREW FOWLER: She invited Julian Assange, but on the day of the cocktail party she couldn't find him. Birgitta Jonsdottir decided not to go, but Assange did.
In a moment of monumental chutzpah Julian Assange inveigled his way into the cocktail party here at the US embassy. He struck up a conversation with US diplomat Sam Watson. Several weeks later Assange published confidential cables authored by the very same diplomat. Now Sam Watson hadn't leaked and neither had any of the other US Embassy staff. Nonetheless, there was a massive internal investigation.
BIRGITTA JONSDOTTIR: I think that many people thought that he had actually gone in and mysteriously sucked out the cables with some spy device or something.
ANDREW FOWLER: Once the document came out, it was convenient to say it might have come from the Embassy?
BIRGITTA JONSDOTTIR: Of course, yeah.
ANDREW FOWLER: Which would have driven the United States intelligence agencies crazy trying to find out where this leak came from?
BIRGITTA JONSDOTTIR: Yes. Well you know, they all need to have a reason to earn their bread.
ANDREW FOWLER: It was the first act of humiliation by WikiLeaks of the world's greatest superpower, but it was nothing compared to what was to come: Collateral Murder; the gunning down of unarmed civilians in a Baghdad street; and the Afghan War Logs. Eight months after his taunting of the US in Iceland, Assange landed in Sweden. He was now a cyber-celebrity.
THOMAS MATTSSON, EDITOR, EXPRESSEN NEWSPAPER: I would say he was... it was a like a pop star, ah, arriving in Sweden. He made public appearances and many media companies wanted to, to talk about... talk with him about eventual co-operation with WikiLeaks.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange had come to Sweden to speak at a conference, but he was also there for more intriguing reasons - to negotiate the use of a former underground nuclear fall-out shelter that stores Internet servers. It would provide first class security against the prying eyes and ears of the world's intelligence agencies. The bomb shelter houses the computer hardware of Rick Falkvinge's Swedish Pirate Party.
RICK FALKVINGE, SWEDISH PIRATE PARTY: We contacted them first, as in just offering server space - right?
ANDREW FOWLER: It might sound like a whacky organisation, but in Sweden it's taken seriously enough to have a member in the European Parliament. The Party's close to WikiLeaks.
RICK FALKVINGE: So we knew about them, they knew about us. We saw they were in trouble and we said, "Hey guys we might be able to help you out here."
ANDREW FOWLER: Falkvinge offered WikiLeaks some space in the bunker.
RICK FALKVINGE: It's an amazing place, to be honest. But, yeah, that's where we offered them hosting space. I don't know how they're using it. I shouldn't know how they're using it. That would interfere with my interests. But I understand it got quite some attention worldwide that WikiLeaks is now hosted in a nuclear bomb-proof fallout shelter.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange was on a roll. Stockholm August 16th, 2010. Julian Assange caught a train from the central station. All the years of hard work were finally paying dividends for Julian Assange. Collateral Murder had been released, so too had the Afghan War Logs. But what would happen in the next few days would derail the WikiLeaks juggernaut.
Assange was not travelling alone. His companion was Sofia Wilen, a 26-year-old admirer. As Assange and Wilen left the train to spend the night together, they could have no idea of the repercussions that would flow from their one night stand. Assange's life would later descend into turmoil.
Two days earlier, the faithful and adoring had gathered at the L.O. building - Stockholm's Trade Union Headquarters. In the audience were two women: Sofia Wilen - in the pink cashmere sweater - and Anna Ardin. Assange was staying at Ardin's flat. They'd slept together the previous night. Later she would tell a friend she had a "wild weekend" with Assange.
Sofia Wilen was enthralled by the Assange phenomena - she texted during his talk, "He looked at me!"
PER E. SAMUELSON: He came to Sweden on the 11th of August 2010, and he had this apartment where one of these women lived. She was supposed to be away so he could stay there, but she came home on the that Friday night - 13th of August - and then they had co...sensual sex and he continued to stay in that apartment until the 18th of August. But in the meantime he made acquaintance with the other woman, and and one night he travelled to her town in Sweden and they had co-co-co...
ANDREW FOWLER: Consensual.
PER E. SAMUELSON: Consensual sex.
ANDREW FOWLER: The sex with Sofia Wilen in her apartment might have been consensual, but critically there was a question over whether Assange had used a condom. The next day, Assange caught the train back to Stockholm. Wilen stayed at home, worried about the possibility of an STD infection. She later rang Anna Ardin, Assange's lover of the previous week.
PER E. SAMUELSON: Somehow the two women started to exchange text messages which... with each other and started to discuss what had happened, and they ended up at the police station, but they did not file any charges against Julian.
ANDREW FOWLER: Ardin and Wilen went to Central Stockholm's Klara police station to see if they could compel Assange to take an STD test should he refuse.
PER E. SAMUELSON: But the police interpreted what one of the girls said as some sort of sex crime having been committed and that resulted in a prosecutor the same night issuing a warrant of arrest for Julian.
ANDREW FOWLER: It would become a tabloid journalist's dream: sex, politics and international intrigue.
(to Thomas Mattson) How big a story has the Assange case been here?
THOMAS MATTSON: The Assange story has been huge, of course...
ANDREW FOWLER: Thomas Mattson is the Editor of Expressen.
THOMAS MATTSON: The story has so many aspects. You have the political question whether this is a case created to damage WikiLeaks...
ANDREW FOWLER: At the time though, Mattson thought it was little more than salacious scandal.
THOMAS MATTSSON: I think that many people... in the beginning, people were, like, shaking their heads, thinking that if you are innocent, well in that case, this is, cannot be a problem. Just show up, say that you're innocent and you will most probably be cleared, if that's the case.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange in fact did go to the Swedish Police ten days after the first allegations were made. He was interviewed but not charged with any offence, and he was free to leave the country while the inquiry continued.
PER E. SAMUELSON: In mid-September he got a message from his then-lawyer, but the prosecutor did not want him and... that he was... for an interview, and that he was free to leave Sweden, and under that assumption he left Sweden in the afternoon of the 27th of September in good faith that he had sought for and got approval from the prosecutor to leave the country.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange made his way to London, holing up at the Frontline Club for journalists. He had unfinished business with America.
JULIAN ASSANGE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, WIKILEAKS (October, 2010): This disclosure is about the truth.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange was at his peak, working with some of the most prestigious and influential media outlets in the world - including the Guardian and New York Times. But ominously, 12 days after giving Assange clearance to leave the country, the Swedes issued a warrant for his arrest. Three weeks later WikiLeaks launched the third big hit against America: The Iraq War Logs.
Then the Swedish prosecutor upped the ante - with Assange now working on the biggest and most sensitive cache of US cables yet, Sweden issued an Interpol Red Notice for his arrest.
JENNIFER ROBINSON, UK LEGAL ADVISOR TO ASSANGE: You only need to look at the way that Red Notices are used around the world. Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators. The president of Syria does not have a Red Notice alert. Gaddafi in Libya, at the same time Julian's arrest warrant was issued, was not subject to a Red Notice but an Orange Notice. It was an incredibly... it was incredibly unusual that a red notice would be sought for an allegation of this kind.
ANDREW FOWLER: The timing of the Red Notice could not have been worse. US Army soldier Bradley Manning had allegedly leaked WikiLeaks more than a quarter of a million classified documents, and Julian Assange was anxious to get them out. They became known as Cablegate.
JULIAN ASSANGE (September 2011): There are so many thousands of stories that have come from that and have influenced elections and have been involved in the course of revolutions.
HILLARY CLINTON, US SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens out national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.
ANDREW FOWLER: An outraged Washington set up a crack team of Pentagon investigators to take on WikiLeaks. It even launched a legally questionable financial blockade to starve WikiLeaks of funds. For America, Cablegate was the final straw. Some even wanted Assange dead.
(Excerpt from Fox News, December, 2010)
FOX PANELLIST: This guy's a traitor, a treasonous, and, and he's broken every law of the United States, the guy ought to be... and I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son-of-a-bitch.
FOX PRESENTER: Paul what about it?
FOX PANELLIST II: This little punk... now I stand up for Obama. Obama, if you're listening today you should take this guy out, have the CIA take him out.
(End of excerpt)
ANDREW FOWLER: If Assange was looking for support from home, he didn't get it.
JULIA GILLARD, AUSTRALIAN PM (December 2010): I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It is a grossly irresponsible thing to do - and, an illegal thing to do.
ANDREW FOWLER: The then-Attorney-General threatened to revoke his Australian passport. It was only because the Federal Police believed that Assange's passport was the best way to track him that he kept it.
JULIAN ASSANGE (September 2011): Well the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are US lackeys. I mean, it's a simple as that. They had a whole of government task force involving every intelligence agency and the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Defence and him trying to work out how to deal with WikiLeaks and me personally.
ANDREW FOWLER: Though the task force found that Assange had broken no law, his more immediate worry was that his extradition to Sweden would be a backdoor to onward extradition to the United States.
For more than 500 days Julian Assange and his legal team fought his extradition. Through the magistrates courts to the High Court and on to the Supreme Court, the most powerful court in the land. But on June the 14th Julian Assange lost his final appeal. The Supreme Court ruled he'd have to be extradited. Five days later, Assange fled to the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
Last month, we managed a brief phone call from a London hotel with Assange in the embassy.
(on phone to Julian Assange) Ok, hang on, I'm just going to put the speaker phone on, one second, sorry...
He revealed why he was seeking political asylum.
JULIAN ASSANGE (on phone): Yes, there are a number of dramatic events that occurred just beforehand. First of all, the Swedish government publicly announced that it would detain me without charge in prison under severe conditions. On the same evening, the UK government security contractors that maintained the electronic manacle around my leg turned up unannounced at 10.30pm and insisted on fitting another manacle to my leg, saying that this was part of routine maintenance - which did not sound to be credible.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange sensed that the net was tightening around him.
JULIAN ASSANGE (on phone): Then the next day, the Crown Prosecution Service, acting we believe on behalf of the Swedish government, requested that the 14 days that I had to apply to the European Court of Human Rights, be reduced to zero.
Assange is safe all the time he remains inside the embassy. But once he steps out, it's almost certain he'll be arrested and extradited to Sweden.
PER E. SAMUELSON: The minute he hits Swedish soil he will be arrested. He will be brought to a custody jail. He will be kept there in isolation for four days. He can only meet with me and my co-lawyer. On the fourth day he will be brought into a courtroom in handcuffs in front of a custody judge, and they will decide whether he will be kept in custody up until the final court case is tried, or if we if he will be released. I will try to get him released of course. But at least four days in Sweden in Swedish prison is... we can't avoid that.
ANDREW FOWLER: At the heart of the matter is whether the Swedish judicial authorities will treat him fairly. Certainly, events so far provide a disturbing picture of Swedish justice. Using facts agreed between the defence and prosecution and other verified information, we have pieced together what happened during those crucial three weeks in August.
On August 11th, 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to attend a conference organised by the Swedish Brotherhood - a branch of the Social Democratic Party. He was offered Anna Ardin's apartment while she was away, but Ardin returned home a day early on Friday the 13th. She invited Assange to stay the night, and they had sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.
The following day, Assange addressed the conference with Ardin at his side. Later that afternoon Ardin organised the Swedish equivalent of a top-notch barbeque - a Crayfish Party. She posted a Twitter message. "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party. Anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow?"
The crayfish party was held that night in a court yard off her apartment. It went on until the early hours of the morning. Ardin tweeted at 2am: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!"
A guest at the party would later tell Swedish Police the event was a very hearty evening. When he offered to put Assange up at his apartment, Ardin replied, "He can stay with me."
In the past 24 hours, Ardin had worked closely with Assange, had sex with him, organised a crayfish party on his behalf - and, according to one witness, turned down alternate accommodation for him. It is during this same period that police will later investigate whether Assange coerced and sexually molested Anna Ardin.
PER E. SAMUELSON: Well, if you send text messages like that, "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world", the night after you then say you were raped - I mean you shouldn't write such text messages if you had been raped by that person the night before.
ANDREW FOWLER: Your client described Julian Assange as a "cool man". I think, one of the "coolest men in the world" that she'd had in her bed.
CLAES BORGSTROM: I will argue in court. I have of course arguments concerning exactly what you're talking about now, but I will not tell any media of how I am going to represent the women in in court. I'm sorry.
ANDREW FOWLER: But can you see how that looks as though...
CLAES BORGSTROM: Yes, of course I can.
ANDREW FOWLER: ...it's a fit up. It looks as though they are in fact setting him up.
CLAES BORGSTROM: I'm quite aware of that.
ANDREW FOWLER: Sunday August 15th - the next day. Assange attended a dinner party at Stockholm's Glenfiddich restaurant, organised by pirate party founder Rick Falkvinge.
RICK FALKVINGE: I think a lot of people at the... at the table had meatballs. I think Julian might have been one of them. Now, Swedish meatballs that, that's a little bit like mum's apple pie in Sweden - as in, you can call my wife ugly, you can kick my dog, but the instant you say something bad about my mother's meatballs I'm going to take it personal.
ANDREW FOWLER: Also at the dinner was Anna Ardin.
(to Rick Falkvinge) So, just to get this straight: Julian Assange arrived with Anna Ardin and he left with Anna Ardin.
RICK FALKVINGE: Yep.
ANDREW FOWLER: What was their behaviour like towards each other?
RICK FALKVINGE: Well, I was discussing mainly with Julian and the... again I can't go into too much detail here, but it was at least a very professional dinner. There were two high level organisations, both intent on changing the world behaving professionally.
ANDREW FOWLER: The fact that Anna Ardin accompanied Julian Assange through this dinner and left with him - what does that say to you?
RICK FALKVINGE: Well that's going into speculating on merits of extradition, and I can't really do that. I think that be... you're presenting an objective fact, as did I, and if people want to read something into that that's obviously ripe for doing so, but I can't spell it out.
ANDREW FOWLER: Four Corners has obtained a photograph, lodged with police investigators, from that evening. Anna Ardin is on the left. Afterwards, Assange would again spend the night at her apartment.
The following day, August the 16th, Assange had sex with Sophia Wilen at her apartment. According to police records, Ardin was aware that he had slept with Sophia. A witness told police he contacted Anna Ardin looking for Assange. She texted back: "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?" That same day, the witness asked Ardin, "Is it cool he's living there? Do you want, like, for me to fix something else?" According to the witness she replied: "He doesn't, like, sleep at nights so that's a bit difficult. So he has a bit of difficulty taking care of his hygiene. But it's ok if he lives with me, it's no problem."
Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The circumstances leading up to the issue of the arrest warrant gave cause for grave concern for Julian about the procedures that were adopted in the investigation. We have to remember that when the announcement was put out that he would be subject to a warrant, one of the complainants was upset by that, and later said that she felt railroaded by the police.
KARIN ROSANDER, SWEDISH PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE: Well what happened is what was that the duty prosecutor got a phone call from the police and the duty prosecutor decided that he should be arrested.
ANDREW FOWLER: And what happened?
KARIN ROSANDER: He was arrested in his absence, but he... they never got in... got in contact with him so, but he was arrested in his absence. It's a technical... technical thing in Sweden, Swedish law, yeah.
ANDREW FOWLER: The Prosecutor's Office might not have contacted Assange but within hours they let the whole of Sweden know what was going on - leaking to the Expressen Tabloid the statements of Ardin and Wilen. The newspaper front page read: "Assange hunted for rape in Sweden".
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Julian wakes up the following morning to read the newspapers to hear that he's wanted for double rape and he's absolutely shocked.
THOMAS MATTSSON: Two of our reporters had information about Julian Assange, and we also had a confirmation from the prosecutor which confirmed on record that there was a police investigation against Julian Assange.
ANDREW FOWLER: It was now the case took a strange twist. Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement.
During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: "I'm not going to leak anything." The interview was leaked.
PER E. SAMUELSON: Why did you leak his name to a tabloid paper? How... how can you drop the case and reopen the case and how can you... how can you not say that he waited for five weeks in Sweden voluntarily to participate in the investigation? Why do you have to arrest him? Why do you have to keep him in handcuffs? Why can't you conduct this in a proper manner? The rest of the world sees it, but Sweden unfortunately doesn't.
ANDREW FOWLER: It is perhaps understandable that Assange had doubts he would receive fair treatment from the Swedish authorities. On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden. Assange, back in England, would later offer to return within a month. The Swedish Authorities said too late - a second warrant had already been issued for his arrest.
ANDREW FOWLER: He says that he left the country and then was prepared to come back at any time. Is that your understanding?
CLAES BORGSTROM: I don't believe that.
ANDREW FOWLER: He says that he was prepared to come back in October but the prosecutor wanted him back earlier.
CLAES BORGSTROM: I don't know. I don't believe he wanted to he was he wanted to come freely back to Sweden. I don't think so.
ANDREW FOWLER: Can you understand that the Australian people may not understand how somebody can be accused in their absence when they haven't even been interviewed, then have that rape case dropped, the arrest warrant removed and then have it re-instituted, all in the space of a few days?
KARIN ROSANDER: Yeah I can very well understand the confusion and, and, I... that is very difficult to understand, well, exactly how it works.
ANDREW FOWLER: Well you call it confusing, it's... it may be slightly more than that.
KARIN ROSANDER: Well that's the way it works here in Sweden so, well... but I can understand the confusion, definitely.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange, still hunkered down in the London embassy, has no doubt what his fate will be if he is extradited.
JULIAN ASSANGE (on phone): If I was suddenly taken to Sweden, I would not be in a position to apply for political asylum in relation to United States. it would be the end of the road. I would just be taken from one jail to another.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: the US has said specifically, the US ambassador to London said, they would wait to see what happened in Sweden. And so we are very concerned about the prospect that once matters are resolved in Sweden, he will... there will be an extradition request from there and he will not be able to travel home to Australia and will have to fight extradition in the Swedish court.
ANDREW FOWLER: The US Ambassador to Australia suggests that Washington isn't interested in the Swedish extradition.
JEFFREY L. BLEICH, US AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA (May 2012): It's not something that the US cares about, it's not interested in it, it hasn't been involved in it - and frankly, if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK, so I think it's one of those narratives that has been made up - there's nothing to it.
MICHAEL RATNER, US LAWYER ASSANGE: That's diplomatic speak. That doesn't mean anything. Their last statement three days ago by their spokesperson Linn Boyd says we are continuing our investigation of WikiLeaks. So you can't accept those words.
ANDREW FOWLER: Michael Ratner, Assange's New York lawyer, believes there's an easy solution to the issue.
MICHAEL RATNER: If they flatly said, "We do not... we will not prosecute Julian Assange" that would be a very different kind of statement - and... and they, in my view, is they should that I think they should say it, one, because then Julian Assange could leave the Ecuadorian Embassy, go to Sweden, deal with Sweden and continue on with his life.
ANDREW FOWLER: But Ratner thinks that's not what the United States wants. He's convinced a Grand Jury is investigating WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Four Corners has obtained a copy of a subpoena from a Grand Jury which is examining evidence for possible charges relating to "conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defence information" and obtaining "information protected from disclosure from national defence". Critically the subpoena contains the identifying codes "10" and "3793'.
MICHAEL RATNER: There's a Grand Jury currently sitting in Alexandria Virginia and the Grand Jury's number - and it's interesting the Grand Jury's number is 10 standing for the year it began, GJ which is Grand Jury and then 3793. Three is the Conspiracy Statute in the United States. 793 is the Espionage Statute. So what they're investigating is 3793: conspiracy to commit espionage.
ANDREW FOWLER: Certainly, anyone associated with Assange is feeling the heat of the US authorities. Icelandic activist, Smari McCarthy, worked on the Collateral Murder video. We caught up with him at a Reykjavik hotel.
ANDREW FOWLER: So what is it about WikiLeaks that changed everything?
SMARI MCCARTHY, ICELAND MODERN MEDIA INITIATIVE: It industrialised the process of leaking.
ANDREW FOWLER: McCarthy flew into Washington earlier this year to attend a conference. Security officials had him in their sights the moment he stepped off the plane.
SMARI MCCARTHY: When I get out through the doorway there's two bordering customs control officers. One of them takes a look at my passport, says, "Yes this is the guy", and they walk with me away.
ANDREW FOWLER: McCarthy was questioned for several minutes about the reason for his trip, before the border guards got to the point.
SMARI MCCARTHY: And then about, like, in the last couple of minutes they say, "Well you know we're actually asking you these question is because we know you're related to WikiLeaks", and I say, "Well I was, but I'm no longer". And they ask, like, "So you're not in contact with Julian Assange?" And I say, "No, I have no contact with Julian", and they're like, "Oh, okay", and basically let me out. I'm on my way.
ANDREW FOWLER: But it wasn't the last McCarthy would see of the FBI. After the conference McCarthy had a drink with friends before heading to the Washington Metro. He missed the last train. As he walked out of the Archives Station two men confronted him.
SMARI MCCARTHY: Two guys come up to me and address me by name, and say that they're FBI agents, and, "We'd like to ask you some questions", and I say to them, "Well I've had some beers and I don't have lawyers, so no, I'm not going to answer any questions". They nevertheless give me a piece of paper with a phone number and an email address. This was not a business card, this was a piece of paper. This was just a kind of a card file thing, but it was handwritten and the email address was not at FBI.gov as you would expect from FBI agents.
ANDREW FOWLER: Just why they wouldn't give an FBI email address puzzled McCarthy .
SMARI MCCARTHY: They say, "Well, they contain our full names", and I said, "Why is that a problem?" "Well we're afraid that if our full names... if we give you our full names, then there will be retaliation against us personally from Anonymous."
ANDREW FOWLER: The two men seemed worried he might be a member of the cyber-hacker group Anonymous which had worked with WikiLeaks.
SMARI MCCARTHY: And I said, "Who the hell do you think I am? I'm not like the grand master of Anonymous. There's no... I don't even know anybody in Anonymous," right?
ANDREW FOWLER: McCarthy's experience could be dismissed as an oddity, but in the backstreets of Paris we found someone with a very similar story. Jérémie Zimmermann heads up an Internet activist group. He's a WikiLeaks supporter.
JÉRÉMIE ZIMMERMANN, INTERNET LIBERTY: I'm a friend with Julian. I think he's a he's a very intelligent and and very witty person, and I enjoy very much the conversations we have together.
ANDREW FOWLER: Earlier this year, as he prepared to board a plane at Washington's Dulles Airport, two men approached him about his involvement with WikiLeaks
JÉRÉMIE ZIMMERMANN: They didn't show any badge. So I didn't ask for one, but I saw their colleague maintaining the gate of the plane open, so I thought you don't do that with a, you know, a university library card, so I thought...
ANDREW FOWLER: So you thought they must be FBI?
JÉRÉMIE ZIMMERMANN: I thought they must be FBI - and actually the agent questioning me was a caricature of FBI agent, you know, with a large jaw, short hair, tight suit - and he said, "Well, your name was mentioned in a criminal investigation for conspiracy involving lots of people", and so which case he was referring to it's the Grand Jury in Virginia. And so I ask him, thinking aloud, if I understand correctly: "Either I talk to you or I take full responsibility for my actions in front of a judge during a fair trial". And this is where he replied immediately: "Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been to jail?" - in an obvious attempt to intimidate me.
ANDREW FOWLER: What do you think they were trying to achieve?
JÉRÉMIE ZIMMERMANN: Maybe it was to turn me into an informant, try to send me, get information from Julian, or whatever. I don't know. I will never know, probably.
MICHAEL RATNER: Zimmermann was stopped roughly at the same time coming back from a similar thing with McCarthy, so I don't know who would be tricking them into thinking they were FBI agents. What we've seen in a couple of these stops in the Assange WikiLeaks case is people introduce themselves as Homeland Security - at least in one instance - and not as FBI and then when they get pushed a little they have to admit they're FBI. Now, it's interesting when you think about it: these people have been hit by the FBI and that what it also tells you that this is a Justice Department investigation of civilians.
ANDREW FOWLER: Even Assange's UK legal advisor, Jennifer Robinson, appears to have been caught in the US dragnet.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I'd had an incredibly long day at work and I was late to the airport. I rushed out to Heathrow, handed over my passport and the woman behind the desk was having a lot of difficulty. She couldn't check me in. She looked at me in a strange manner and said "Look, this is odd. You're Australian, you're travelling home to Australia, you shouldn't need a visa". I said, "Well no, I'm Australian. Here's my passport, I'm going home", and she said, "I can't check you in".
ANDREW FOWLER: A security officer took Robinson's passport away
JENNIFER ROBINSON: She came back about 15 minutes later carrying a mobile phone, handed my passport to the woman behind the desk and said, "She's inhibited. We can't check her in until we've got approval from Australia House."
ANDREW FOWLER: Though Robinson was eventually allowed to catch the plane, she has still not received an explanation why she is on a so-called "inhibited list". It does not appear to be an Australian government term. But US Homeland Security uses the phrase to identify people who need to be watched.
Now back in England, she continues to be Assange's legal advisor. We caught up with her on a visit to the Ecuadorian Embassy.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Look he is now gathering and preparing materials for the purpose of his application to the Ecuadorian authorities, and essentially now it's a matter for the Ecuadorian government.
ANDREW FOWLER: How is he... what's his manner like? How's his humour?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I have never known anyone to deal with the amount of stress that he's under as well as he does. He's in very good spirits and still very committed to WikiLeaks work. He may be confined to the embassy but as he showed during house arrest, that doesn't stop him. In the last 18 months we've seen a television program, we've seen further WikiLeaks releases - so I don't think he'll let this stop him either.
ANDREW FOWLER: Assange's primary concern is that the Australian Government has never properly addressed the central question: the near certainty that a Grand Jury is investigating WikiLeaks and the possibility of him being charged.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: We are very concerned about the very prospect of potential extradition to the US. We need only look to the treatment of Bradley Manning. He's been held in pre-trial detention for more than two years now, in conditions for a large part of that detention which the UN Special Repertoire said amount to torture. We are very concerned about the prospect of him ending up in the US, and the risk of onward extradition from Sweden was always a concern and remains a concern.
ANDREW FOWLER: Once in Sweden he would be at the mercy of a system which has a record of complying with US wishes. And there's evidence that Sweden has acted illegally in past extraditions involving the US.
RICK FALKVINGE: Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"
ANDREW FOWLER: If that seems like a heavy handed comment, there's evidence to back it up.
RICK FALKVINGE: There was a famous case in last decade where a couple of Swedish citizens were even renditioned by the CIA in a quite torturous manner to Egypt where they were tortured further, which goes against every part of Swedish legislation, every international agreement on human rights - and not to say human dignity. ** (See Clarification)
ANDREW FOWLER: A United Nations investigation later found against Sweden. The country was forced to pay compensation. For Assange, coupled with his other experiences of the Swedish judicial system, it is perhaps understandable that he fears ending up in Sweden.
MICHAEL RATNER: For me the question really is if I'm sitting in Julian Assange's if I if I'm sitting in Julian Assange's position, I'd be very, very nervous because the United States gets their hands on you in this case, and you're a goner. So, you know, what I get asked all the time is, "Well, how do you know." To me the question isn't how I know I know there's a lot of evidence out there that it looks like that. To me the burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.
KERRY O'BRIEN: We approached Australia's Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, to pose a number of questions related to the Assange case, but she was unavailable on holidays. Ultimately, some of our questions were answered by a Foreign Affairs spokesman, by email, on behalf of Foreign Minister Bob Carr. They're on our website.
Next week on Four Corners, the woman who forecast her own brutal death, but could find no one willing to listen. Until then, good night.
End of transcript
**Clarification (May 16, 2013): Rick Falkvidge's reference to two men removed from Sweden to Egypt by the CIA as "Swedish citizens". They were not Swedish citizens but asylum seekers who had been permitted to stay in Sweden while their applications for asylum were processed.'

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange addresses journalists in Berlin via video link on 4 October 2016Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Julian Assange has been claiming asylum at London's Ecuadorean embassy since 2012
WikiLeaks says that Ecuador has shut down internet access for its founder Julian Assange.
The transparency activist has sought asylum at London's Ecuadorean embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition over sex assault allegations.
WikiLeaks accused US Secretary of State John Kerry of asking Ecuador to stop it publishing documents about Hillary Clinton.
The US state department said the allegation was "simply untrue".
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Guillaume Long made no comment on the allegations, saying only: "The circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain."
WikiLeaks has recently been releasing emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Eleven revelations from Clinton emails
Why the US fears Russia is hacking the election
Ecuador 'fed up' with Assange embassy 'under siege'
TwitterImage copyrightTWITTER
The anti-secrecy organisation did not return calls and emails on Monday, though it said in a tweet: "We have activated the appropriate contingency plans."
A woman who picked up the phone at the Ecuadorean embassy said: "I cannot disclose any information."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to volunteers at a campaign office in SeattleImage copyrightAP
Image caption
WikiLeaks has released Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs
The ambassador has not yet responded to emails, and London's Metropolitan Police declined to comment.
The WikiLeaks claim follows emails it disclosed from a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails.
It released three transcripts on Saturday of Mrs Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, which her campaign had long refused to release.
The scripts reveal her bantering relationship with the investment bank's executives, which is unlikely to allay fears among liberal Democrats that she is too cosy with Wall Street.
The Democratic White House candidate's camp has claimed the cyber-breach was orchestrated by Russian hackers with the aim of undermining the US democratic process.
While Mrs Clinton's team has neither confirmed nor denied the leaked emails are authentic, there have been no indications they are fake.
'Covert' Syrian action
According to the latest leaked emails, Mrs Clinton told a Goldman Sachs conference she would like to intervene secretly in Syria.
She made the remark in answer to a question from Lloyd Blankfein, the bank's chief executive, in 2013 - months after she left office as secretary of state.
"My view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene," she told employees of the bank in South Carolina, which had paid her about $225,000 (£185,000) to give a speech.
Mrs Clinton - who is accused of being hawkish by liberal critics - added: "We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can't help themselves.
"They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I want credit for it."_________________www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.orgwww.rethink911.orgwww.patriotsquestion911.comwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

You can't blame the Ecuadoreans for being fed up. They are probably getting covert threats from teh 'Evil Empire', as well as things being completely different in Latin America now from when Assange first got refuge there.
Venezuela is on the ropes, Brazil has had a 'Wangled' coup, removing Dilma on a technicality, and removed by a right shower of corrupt Justices, Parliamentarians and others with the blessings of the milittary and Church, and Venezuela is also in dire straights.

For Londoners there is a vigil 14th November, where we can show our support and solidarity:

This special vigil outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is very important as this is the day the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be finally questioned enabling some progress regarding the outstanding Swedish case. Please visit www.justice4assange.com website for the latest developments in this case.

Particularly, we remember the last time the Swedish Prosecutor was to proceed with questioning the meeting was cancelled at the last minute we also remember that JA's legal team welcomed the progress of the investigation and has actively pursued it for years.

It is also the case that the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention has examined the case from the very start of Julian Assange's detention in 2010 and through the years' long procrastination and inactivity by Sweden and have found that both the UK and Sweden are arbitrarily detaining him, that they should release and compensate him.

Since neither countries have complied with their International obligations, both UK and Sweden will be under scrutiny on the subject during their UN Universal Periodic Review for Human Rights. Already UK has been chastised.

Quote &quot;Assange’s case &quot;raises serious concerns regarding the UK’s ability to guarantee equal treatment and the right to a fair trial, protection against inhuman and degrading treatment and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the right to privacy and family life and the right to health. In addition, Mr Assange’s case is emblematic of the trajectory of human rights protection in the UK, with the UK’s apparent efforts to cut off access to human rights appeal mechanisms, and demonstrates the importance of access to UN complaint mechanisms for UK citizens and residents.&quot; Unquote

If you are unable to attend, but still wish to show your support, please share with us a statement of support special for the occasion which we can read out during the event.

Julian Assange Defence Committee JADC@protonmail.ch_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

I'll post the lot, because it is important to have it out there in as many places as possible:

'Julian Assange has published his statement given to the Swedish prosecutor. I give it in full below. I do implore you to read it. This is the first time his defence has been made public, although the media have been delighted to report the leaked allegations against him in detail.
His defence will not be given in the same detail in the media.

It is worth noting that under Swedish law the identity of both the accuser and the accused ought to be protected, but that did not prevent Swedish police and prosecutors leaking details to a complicit media, or the women concerned selling their story to the tabloids.

You really do owe it to yourself, to justice and to personal honesty to read Julian’s side of the story.

14/15 NOVEMBER 2016 QUESTIONING AT THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY LEGALLY PRIVILEGED

You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.

I. THE SWEDISH PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

I, Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, have had my passport taken by British authorities and so cannot provide formal identification, am in a situation of arbitrary detention according to the decision of the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) of 4 December 2015; a political refugee since 19 June 2012 at the Embassy of Ecuador with asylum which was granted by Ecuador on 16 August 2012, and hereby appear before the authorities of Sweden and Ecuador in the framework of a rogatory commission that has been entered between these two states, requested by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, and declare that:
1. I ratify what has been expressed by my Ecuadorian lawyer, both in relation to this procedure today and the concerns about the procedure pursued against me in Sweden, including the failure to allow my Swedish lawyer to be present and the failure to provide me with exculpatory and other discovery material, which I have, to date, not been given proper access to, including in the preparation for this statement today.
2. Today, 14 November 2016, after having made myself available to the Swedish authorities since the start of this outrageous process six years ago, I am finally given the opportunity to give my statement to the Swedish preliminary investigation. I am grateful to Ecuador for attempting to facilitate this process in the circumstances where the Swedish prosecutor has declined, since 2010, to accept this, my first statement on the allegation against me.
3. I went to Sweden on 11 August 2010. During my stay, I met a woman (hereinafter called ”SW”). On the evening of 16 August, 2010 she invited me to her home. During the night and in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions.
4. I therefore could not believe my eyes when five days later I saw a headline in a Swedish tabloid that I was suspected of a crime and arrested in my absence. I immediately made myself available to the Swedish authorities to clarify any questions that might exist, although I had no obligation to do so.
5. That same day (21 August 2010), the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné, dropped the arrest warrant against me and within days would close the preliminary investigation with the finding that no crime whatsoever had been committed against the woman “SW” (who is the subject of this procedure). I drew the conclusion that, other than the worldwide damage to my reputation caused by millions of web pages saying that I was “wanted for rape”, my life, in this respect, would return to normal.
6. On 23 August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné stated she “made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape”.
7. On 25 August, the Chief Prosecutor found that “The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed”.
8. A week later, I learned to my surprise that a different prosecutor by the name of “Marianne Ny” had reopened the preliminary investigation without any consultation or opportunity for me to be heard – after I had already been cleared and the case had been closed.
9. That prosecutor eventually issued an extradition warrant against me, supposedly to take my statement, even though I left Sweden with her permission and in good faith, and had repeatedly tried to see if the prosecutor was ready to accept my statement. I had not and have still not been charged with a crime.
10. It has taken more than six years for the prosecutor to now obtain my statement. The delay is entirely caused by the prosecutor who re-opened the closed preliminary investigation. A prosecutor is, according to Swedish law (Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Procedural Code), obligated to conduct the preliminary investigation as expeditiously as possible and when there is no longer reason for pursuing the investigation, it shall be discontinued. At the preliminary investigation phase, the prosecutor is obligated to take into account all the circumstances: those against the suspect as well as those circumstances in favour of the suspect, and any evidence favourable to the suspect shall be preserved. The investigation shall be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.
11. Instead of following the law, prosecutor Marianne Ny has kept the preliminary investigation open without justification for over six years. She deliberately suspended her work to progress and bring to a conclusion the preliminary investigation. She has for more than six years refused to take my statement during which time she has done nothing to pursue the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation entered into a stasis more than six years ago. I have always demonstrated my willingness to cooperate in order to speed up the process – although there is no obligation whatsoever for me to do so. All the obligation is on the prosecutor to progress the preliminary investigation. This attitude of the prosecutor has clearly breached mandatory rules in Swedish law.
12. I reiterate that over the past six years, I have continued to call for this prosecutor to accept my statement, including by:
— Willingly attending a questioning on 30 August 2010 in Stockholm, where no questions were asked about the allegation, as I had already been cleared. — Staying in Sweden for more than five weeks longer than planned, repeatedly asking if or when I could give a statement, despite pressing commitments elsewhere. — Gaining the prosecutor’s consent to leave Sweden before doing so on 27 September 2010 in good faith, understanding that I was not required to provide a further statement for the time being. On the day I left the country three of my encrypted laptops were seized from me at Stockholm’s Arlanda airport. The laptops contained evidence of war crimes pending publication and protected legal correspondence. — Offering to return to Sweden to give a statement in October 2010.
— Offering to give my statement from London via numerous methods including telephone or videolink or in writing from London between October 2010 and up to and through the prosecutor unnecessarily issuing a European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant attempted to extradite me, without charge, from the UK to Sweden, to take my statement. I was actively offering the testimony she claimed she wanted when she sought my arrest. — Providing a DNA sample six years ago in December 2010 when I was first arrested at Sweden’s request and which has been available to the prosecutor for the last six years. She has never bothered to even attempt to use it. — Offering to give a statement in London via Mutual Legal Assistance, among other suggestions, during my time of house arrest (7 December 2010 – 19 June 2012). — Offering to give a statement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as from 19 June 2012, for instance via email from my Swedish lawyers on 24 July 2012 and during a meeting between my lawyers and the prosecutors in Stockholm 7 May 2013 – over four years ago and over three years ago respectively. — Offering to come to Sweden provided Sweden would give a guarantee that I am not extradited to another state over my publishing work. This offer was also requested by Ecuador through diplomatic channels and publicly in 2012, as I am a refugee in its jurisdiction.
13. As this demonstrates, although I have no obligation to do so, I have done everything within my power to offer my testimony to the prosecutor while protecting my right to asylum and protecting myself against the risk of extradition to the United States, where there is an open national security case against me. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, WikiLeaks’ alleged source in that matter, Chelsea Manning, has been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in US detention, and has since been convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
14. The state of Sweden has refused to provide me the necessary assurances against extradition or other transport to the United States since 2010 when such was asked by my lawyers and since 2012 when requested to do so by the state of Ecuador. Sweden has also refused to accept that the asylum Ecuador has granted me requires it to protect me from onwards extradition to the United States, despite this being the recognized norm in asylum cases, thus making it impossible for me to go to Sweden without giving up my fundamental right as a political refugee. This refusal to recognize my rights as a political refugee has been the sole impediment to my presence in Sweden. I explicitly offered to accept extradition to Sweden provided it simply guarantee that it will not transfer me to another state. This was declined.
15. Nevertheless, I have continued to offer the prosecutor my statement through mechanisms which can be employed to achieve her stated purpose without putting at risk my fundamental rights, which she has, until recently, rejected.
16. Two years ago the Svea Court of Appeal on 20 November 2014 severely criticized the prosecutor for her negligence:
“The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward.”
17. It was not until March 2015 that Marianne Ny finally – after she had been found in breach of her duties by Sweden’s Court of Appeal and my case was before the Supreme Court and it became apparent that she might lose – claimed that she would, under certain restrictive conditions, accept my statement after all.
18. Since that time, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its ruling on 5 February 2016 that my situation in the embassy amounts to an unlawful and arbitrary detention, in breach of Sweden’s binding legal obligations under international law. UNWGAD found that Sweden and the UK have disregarded the asylum that I have been granted by Ecuador, forcing me to choose between deprivation of liberty and the risk of losing Ecuador’s protection and being extradited to the United States.
19. It then took Marianne Ny more than 18 months after her claimed change of position at the Supreme Court to arrange this meeting. I have not been responsible for a single day of delay in this process. All the delay has been caused by prosecutor Marianne Ny and the state authorities. Again note that all the obligation is on the prosecutor.
20. Furthermore, the UNWGAD concluded that the Swedish prosecutor has breached my due process rights in the conduct of this preliminary investigation and that seeking my extradition to Sweden as the only option in these circumstances was ”excessive and unnecessary” [para 97]. In particular, it found:
“…after more than five years’ time lapse, he is still left at the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence…” [para. 97] “…Mr Assange has been denied the opportunity to provide a statement, which is a fundamental aspect of the audi alteram partem principle, the access to exculpatory evidence, and thus the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations…” [para. 98] “…the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence.” [para. 98]

21. As a result of the Swedish prosecutor’s actions, UNWGAD found my circumstances to be of an increasingly serious deprivation of liberty which is of an indefinite nature and is already far longer than the maximum penalty I could ever theoretically face in Sweden. For these reasons UNWGAD found that the severe and indefinite nature of these deprivations amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Sweden’s obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7. The severity of this treatment is further confirmed by the expert opinion of Fernando Mariño, the former President of the UN Committee Against Torture, which is entered into the official record of this proceeding.
22. Ten months after the UNWGAD determination the harshness of the situation continues to affect my physical and psychological health. My lawyers have informed the Swedish authorities of the ongoing deterioration of my health through the medical certificates and expert opinions of Dr. Michael Korzinski and Dr. Fluxman, from 11 November 2015; of Dr. Ladbrooke from 8 December 2015; of Dr. Michael Korzinski from 15 June 2016; and of Dr. Ladbrooke from 9 November 2016.
23. And so, finally, here we are today, under the jurisdiction of Ecuador, with my rights ever increasingly limited, as my Ecuadorian defence counsel has expressed. After more than six
years, I am finally being given the “opportunity” to give my statement but with my Swedish counsel having been excluded and under a clear situation of legal defencelessness, resulting from years of negligence and intentional and unlawful delays by the Swedish authorities.
24. All the irregularities that have occurred through the acts or omissions of the prosecution authority and the six-year delay to date of this disproportionate, inhumane and unlawful preliminary investigation have permanently destroyed all possibilities for me to properly defend myself – which is no doubt their intention.
25. Following the above, I wish to express in the strongest terms, that, in addition to the breaches of my due process rights in the investigation to date, the procedure to be adopted today in taking my statement further breaches those rights:
— My Swedish defence lawyer was not permitted to be present today, despite the fact that these proceedings concern a Swedish criminal preliminary investigation. — In the opinion of my general practitioner, I am unfit to prepare and participate in these proceedings (after having been denied hospital treatment and sunlight for 4.5 years). — My Ecuadorian defence counsel has had no access to the case file, let alone in Spanish, the language he understands, nor has he had adequate time to prepare my defence. — My lawyers and I have not been permitted access to the case file. — I have been denied my request to read the text messages that my Swedish defence lawyers have read, which are a key element to my defence because they clearly show that I am innocent.
26. Due to all the shortcomings stated above, prosecutor Marianne Ny should have drawn the obvious conclusion that she discontinue the preliminary investigation.
27. In this context I once again remind you that I have already been cleared and that the preliminary investigation was closed by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné in August 2010.
28. Given this history I have good reason to have concern about whether this “preliminary investigation” is being conducted in good faith and whether honest and impartial consideration will be given to my statement. I suspect that the real purpose of the Swedish prosecutor coming here today is not to obtain my statement but is simply a ruse to tick a box to ensure the technical possibility to indict me, irrespective of how I answer any questions.
29. I do not believe that prosecutor Marianne Ny is acting in good faith or with the objectivity and impartiality required of her office. For example, after circumventing the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm’s decision to close this case, prosecutor Ny has made at least 40 press releases and press conferences about me where my name has been published, even though there is no charge against me and I have been previously cleared, subjecting me to endless needless suspicion, in clear violation of her duty to not do so under Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish Procedural Code.
30. My overall conclusion is that the prosecutor’s conduct of the preliminary investigation, for all the reasons above has continued to deprive me of the right to defend myself.
31. I have no obligation to cooperate with this abuse, but I find myself in a coercive situation. I am meant to be protected by the decision of the UNWGAD which makes it clear that this “preliminary investigation” has violated my human rights and that its attempts to arrest me should be discontinued immediately. That decision was issued almost a year ago, but my situation remains unchanged. Despite the many violations already described I feel compelled to give my statement today so that there can be no more excuses for the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny to continue my indefinite unlawful detention, which is a threat to my health and even to my life. I have been pushing and indeed litigating for this prosecutor to take my statement for more than six years. The prosecutor has made excuse after excuse to not take my statement. I will not grant this prosecutor any excuse to continue to avoid taking my statement as I fear she would use it as a means to indefinitely prolong my cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

II. REASONS WHY I TRAVELLED TO STOCKHOLM IN AUGUST 2010

32. I am the editor-in-chief and publisher of WikiLeaks, a publishing organisation specializing in the analysis of records under risk of censorship that are of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance. Among other countries, WikiLeaks publishes and analyses documents that concern the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom, including millions of documents relating to actions of military, intelligence and foreign services. I have received numerous awards in relation to my publishing work, including the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, The Economist New Media Award (USA) 2008, the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media), the 2010 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (USA) award, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (Australia), the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (UK), the 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (Australia), the 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (Spain), the 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, the 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (Spain), the 2012 Privacy International Award, the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award, and the 2013 Global Exchange Human Rights Awards, as well as formal nominations for the United Nations’ Mandela Prize (2014) and for the past six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize.
33. The US launched an investigation against me in early 2010 under the Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. This administration has expended very substantial resources on attempting to prosecute me and attempting to spy on my publishing work despite its constitutionally protected status. The US government’s WikiLeaks investigation is described in official diplomatic correspondence as being “unprecedented in scale and nature”.
34. All the citations I mention are in my affidavit from 2 September 2013, which I am entering into the official record of this proceeding.
35. The US government has periodically confirmed in public that the national security case against WikiLeaks remains open and ongoing, including in proceedings from this year. Numerous human rights and freedom of speech organizations such as Human Rights Watch have criticized the Obama administration for pursuing a criminal case against WikiLeaks and me.
36. The investigation against Wikileaks is led by the FBI and has involved a dozen other agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, and the Defence Intelligence Agency. The US government has described the investigation as a “whole of government” investigation. In Alexandria, Virginia, a Grand Jury has been meeting behind closed doors for the past six years under case number 10GJ3793 to explore ways to imprison me and seven others who they have identified as “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks”. The prosecution in the Chelsea Manning case attempted to establish that Private Manning acted as an agent under my control rather than as a journalistic source of mine, even though in Private Manning’s own statement to the court, she said this was not the case. The US military charged Private Manning with twenty-two counts in connection with the release of more than 700,000 classified or confidential documents to WikiLeaks. On 30 July 2013 private Manning was convicted of twenty of these counts and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison on 20 August 2013.
37. Private Manning was detained for more than 1,000 days before the trial commenced. During this time she remained for 258 days in solitary confinement. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture found that the conditions and length of private Private Manning’s confinement at Quantico, Virginia, amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatmen t”. Private Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, said that the treatment of Private Manning was an attempt at breaking her so that Manning would implicate me. The US military court system eventually found that Private Manning was unlawfully punished as a result of this treatment while in US custody. Private Manning was convicted of espionage; the first whistleblower ever so convicted. Private Manning was acquitted of the “aiding the enemy” charge, but the US government could still seek to employ this charge against me. Private Manning is serving a 35 year prison sentence.
38. According to the respected UK newspaper The Independent, the US and Sweden entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in early December 2010. These talks of my extradition concerned the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks, which is also the reason that Ecuador granted me asylum.
39. The aggressive calls to stop WikiLeaks from publishing were the reason for my travel to Stockholm. US officials’ rhetoric grew increasingly aggressive in the period immediately prior to my visit to Sweden on 11 August 2010. In June, a Daily Beast news report entitled ‘The State Department’s Worst Nightmare’ revealed that the Pentagon was “conducting an aggressive investigation” into whether WikiLeaks had 260,000 US diplomatic cables and the material’s whereabouts.
40. Two days later, an article titled ‘Pentagon Manhunt’ appeared, describing Pentagon investigators desperately trying to track me down in relation to the impending publication of Cablegate:
“Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange”.
41. On 17 June 2010 US Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell stated there was an
“ongoing criminal investigation [concerning WikiLeaks], involving the Army Criminal Investigation Division, as well as, I believe, some other law enforcement agencies.”
42. The Pentagon officials “would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now.” On reading this, I realised WikiLeaks’ continued ability to publish effectively and my own personal safety were at serious risk.
43. During the month of July I worked with a team of journalists in the United Kingdom to publish the Afghan War Diaries: 75,000 secret Pentagon documents about the war in Afghanistan, which included the detailed records about the deaths of nearly 20,000 people. The day after WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diaries, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that WikiLeaks “poses a very real and potential threat”.
44. I published the Afghan War Diaries approximately two weeks before I travelled to Sweden. In the aftermath of the publication, US government officials made efforts to influence the way in which the media reported on our publications. The purpose was to delegitimise WikiLeaks protections as a publisher under the US First Amendment. For example, it attempted to falsely cast WikiLeaks as an adversary, opposed to US national interests, a false claim that I would later see echoed in Swedish media.
45. The New York Times reported that the White House had emailed its reporters with suggested “reporting tacks to take” on WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks’ disclosures, in an attempt to induce news outlets into referring to WikiLeaks in these terms.
46. The White House sent an e-mail with the subject heading “Thoughts on Wikileaks” containing a memo in which the White House
“advised journalists on possible reporting tacks to take on the [Afghan War Diaries] documents […] As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.”
47. I also learned from news reports that security authorities from my home country Australia were assisting the US intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks and me:
“Australian security authorities are assisting a United States intelligence probe into the whistleblower website Wikileaks and its Australian founder and editor, Julian Assange. The US request for support in what Australian national security sources described as ‘a counter-espionage investigation’ preceded Wikileaks’ dramatic publication yesterday of a leaked US military operations log, described as an ”extraordinary compendium” of 91,000 reports by United States and allied soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.”
48. On July 28th, just three days after publishing the Afghan War Diaries and two weeks before I travelled to Sweden, US Department of Defense Secretary Gates “called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI’s assistance in [the WikiLeaks] investigation as a partner.” The US Defence Department declared:
“Calling on the FBI to aid the investigation ensures that the department will have all the resources needed to investigate… noting that use of the bureau ensures the investigation can go wherever it needs to go.”
49. The New York Times reported that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates
“declined to comment about the investigation beyond noting that he had enlisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist Army investigators, a move that is seen as a precursor to potentially charging people who are not uniformed service members […] A person familiar with the investigation has said that Justice Department lawyers are exploring whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with inducing, or conspiring in, violations of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of national security information.”
50. On 1 August 2010, the press reported that the FBI and British police were carrying out searches and interrogations in the UK, where I found myself at the time, in connection with WikiLeaks’ publications.
51. Over the next days, US rhetoric and actions against WikiLeaks intensified. Prominent commentators and former White House officials championed extraterritorial measures and the violation of international law “if necessary”.
52. One of these commentators was former presidential speech writer Marc Thiessen, who published a Washington Post article entitled ‘WikiLeaks Must be Stopped’:
“…the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice.”
53. Thiessen argued that the US should put pressure on any state in which I was located and that the US should, if necessary, arrest me even without the consent of that state. He cited legal advice from the Department of Justice regarding FBI operations abroad:
“The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country — and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland — providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk. With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.”
54. Thiessen further asserted that the FBI could violate international law in order to stop me and apprehend other people associated with WikiLeaks’ publishing activities. Thiessen cited a Department of Justice memo:
“the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law” and that an “arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.
Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses
and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information.
This should be done, ideally, through international law enforcement cooperation. But if such cooperation is not forthcoming, the United States can and should act alone.”
55. Seven days before I travelled to Sweden I was acutely aware that my personal safety was at risk. Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor at Harper’s, wrote the article ‘WikiLeaks: The National-Security State Strikes Back’:
“[Assange] will certainly be targeted for petty harassment and subject to steady surveillance, and efforts to kidnap him are almost certainly being spun at this very moment.”
56. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell announced an anti-WikiLeaks task force comprised of 80 people was operating 24 hours a day. One month later, it had grown to 120 people. The “distinct responsibility” of the Information Review Task Force – dubbed by some occupants as the “WikiLeaks War Room” – was
“…to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.”
57. The article “’The General Gunning for WikiLeaks” described the task force:
“In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks. Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month …”
58. The same article states that Brig. General Robert A. Carr, who runs “the Pentagon’s equivalent to the CIA”, the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was “handpicked” by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to head the team because he “is highly respected …and a fitting adversary to Assange”.
59. General Carr’s “central assignment” was reportedly “to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks”. General Carr testified at the Chelsea Manning sentencing hearing on 31 July 2013.
60. I followed closely how pressure mounted on US allies to track my movements and to stop our publications. Official sources within the administration revealed to the press that the US was not only considering how to prosecute me in relation to WikiLeaks’ publications in the US, but was also requesting their allies to prosecute me under their own national security laws:
“American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others […]
Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges.”
An article published the day before I went to Sweden stated that “The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say.”
61. In addition to the stated intention to restrict my freedom of movement, the US government attempted to convince its allies not to allow me entry into their territory as a warning to me, to those working with me and WikiLeaks, and to our supporters:
“Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments, that Assange should not be welcome on their shores either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk.”
62. The Australian government publicly entertained the possibility of canceling my passport, reportedly as a result of pressure placed on Australia by the United States. Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland assured the United States that the Australian government would “provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities”, including by exploring the possibility of canceling my passport.
63. US pressure even resulted in public attempts to influence decisions based on human rights considerations where I and WikiLeaks were concerned. Through US ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer, the Obama administration pressured Switzerland not to grant me political asylum while I participated at the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of the United States. US ambassador Beyer gave an interview to Swiss newspaper Sonntag:
“The United States ambassador to Switzerland, Donald Beyer, has also entered the Wikileaks debate. He has warned the Swiss government against granting Assange asylum, which the Australian founder of Wikileaks has said he was considering requesting. “Switzerland should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law”.
64. The Daily Beast reported that Washington was prepared to review its diplomatic relations with Iceland because parts of WikiLeaks operations had been conducted in that country:
“An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs.”
65. In the context of my heightened concerns about US activities in the United Kingdom in relation to the WikiLeaks investigation, I decided to leave the country. When I travelled to Sweden on 11 August 2010, the aggressive rhetoric against me had reached new heights.
Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith told National Public Radio:
“I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be very aggressive […] If I were the US government, I would be trying to make it as difficult as possible for the WikiLeaks founder to continue to do business… To the extent we can persuade our allies to consider prosecution, I think that’s all to the good.”
66. On the same day I arrived in Sweden, 11 August 2010, I received information from an Australian intelligence source that extra-legal actions might be taken against me by the US or its allies. This was later reported in the Australian newspaper The Age:
“An Australian intelligence official privately warned Wikileaks on August 11 last year that Assange was the subject of inquiries by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and that information relating to him and others associated with Wikileaks had been provided to the US in response to requests through intelligence liaison channels. The Australian intelligence official is also claimed to have specifically warned that Assange could be at risk of ‘dirty tricks’ from the US intelligence community.”
67. Friends and associates of mine and volunteers for WikiLeaks were regularly targeted at borders from this moment on. Border searches and interrogations have affected security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who had given the keynote speech in my place at the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010. In an interview for Democracy Now, Appelbaum described the targeting he experiences at airports:
In the period of time since [the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010] they’ve started detaining me, around a dozen-plus times… I was put into a special room, where they frisked me, put me up against the wall… they took my laptop… then they interrogated me, denied me access to a lawyer. And when they did the interrogation, they have a member of the U.S. Army, on American soil. And they refused to let me go. They … implied that if I didn’t make a deal with them, that I’d be sexually assaulted in prison.
68. Within days of arriving in Sweden I became concerned about my safety and security there, in particular because of the pressure being brought to bear on US allies, including Sweden.
69. I was aware of the publicly stated attempts to track my movements. I used a number of risk minimisation procedures, including relying on the goodwill of friends and their circles for my safety and to protect the confidentiality of my whereabouts and communications.
70. My contacts in Sweden had arranged for me to stay in two safe houses during the few days I had intended to stay in Sweden. One of the safe houses belonged to a journalist who I knew and another to a Social Democrat party figure unknown to me who had lent her apartment while she was away, or so I had been told. However, because these two original safe houses arranged prior to my arrival became known very soon, I stayed in three additional safe houses between 11 and 20 August 2010.
71. I travelled to Sweden to put in place a legal strategy to try to protect our publishing servers, some of which were in Sweden. I believed these assets were at risk as a result of the intense
political pressure from the US described above. I met with the Swedish Pirate Party, which was represented at the European Parliament at the time, who agreed to host copies of WikiLeaks servers under their party name in order to further protect our publishing work. I also felt it was best to leave the United Kingdom at that time because the FBI was known to be carrying out operations in connection with the investigation into our publications. I intended to stay in Sweden for less than a week.
72. My dependency on other people while in Sweden was aggravated when, shortly after my arrival in Stockholm, my personal bank cards were blocked. On 13 August 2010, the WikiLeaks organization’s Moneybookers account could no longer be accessed. That same day, I contacted the company, who replied: “following recent publicity and the subsequently (sic) addition of the Wikileaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watch lists in the USA, we have terminated the business relationship”. I requested further information from MoneyBookers on 13 August and 16 August regarding the closure, including which blacklists and watchlists my accounts and/or WikiLeaks’ account had been added to, but I was refused this information.
73. The freezing of WikiLeaks’ Moneybookers account was an early example of what in December 2010 would become a concerted extra-judicial global economic blockade against WikiLeaks by US financial service companies, including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America, Western Union and American Express. The blockade was the subject of several court actions, a European Commission investigation, a resolution by the European Parliament, and condemnation by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. On 24 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Iceland found the blockade against WikiLeaks to be unlawful.
74. As a result of being suddenly cut off from personal and organizational funds upon arriving in Sweden, I had to rely on others not only for shelter, but also for food, safety and telephone credit. Unfortunately, I knew very few people in Sweden and those I did were only sporadically in the country.
75. On 13 August 2010 one of the main Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet, published an article entitled ‘Defence ministry prepared for the next leak’, which reported that the Swedish Ministry of Defence had a dedicated group ‘preparing for WikiLeaks next publication’ and had analysed 76,000 previous publications from WikiLeaks in relation to Swedish troops in Afghanistan.
76. Five days later, Swedish state television (SVT) published a segment entitled ‘We risk United States relationship deteriorating’, which argued that the presence of WikiLeaks in Sweden would negatively affect the strategic relationship between Sweden and the United States.

III. THE PERIOD 14-20 AUGUST 2010

77. I met “SW” during my visit to Stockholm. The first time I met her was on the morning of 14 August 2010 when she came to a speech I gave on what my work revealed about the war in Afghanistan, in which Sweden has troops under US command. She sat in the front row and
photographed me. She came to the small private lunch after my talk where one of the organizers stated that she was a volunteer for their organization although they would later claim that this was not true. Due to the security threats against me as a result of my work, I was in a precarious situation. I relied on the kindness of strangers and the safety and discretion they were willing to offer me. I was in a foreign northern country, where I did not speak the language. I had no access to cash because the bank cards I was travelling with had been frozen due to the extra-judicial political measures taken by financial service companies against my organization and me (which are well-documented and the subject of extensive litigation).
78. Prominent “pro-war” personalities were calling for my assassination and capture, and the US administration had stated publicly that my movements were being tracked. “SW” appeared to be sympathetic to my plight and also appeared to be romantically interested in me. She was not close to people I was close to, so it seemed that those who meant me harm would be unlikely to try to find me by monitoring her movements. She said she worked at the National Museum so I asked her to show me, to try to establish her bonafides. At the Museum an IMAX film was playing, where she kissed me and placed my hands on her breasts. She asked whether I was staying with woman “AA”, a Swedish politician, and seemed concerned by it in a manner which I found strange.
79. At her initiative we met again on the evening of 16 August 2010 and she suggested we go to a hotel in Stockholm. For security reasons, I said I would prefer to go to her house even though it was outside of Stockholm. She then invited me to her home. We went by train and she paid for my ticket since my bank cards had been frozen.
80. “SW” made it very clear that she wanted to have sexual intercourse with me. I felt concerned about the intensity of “SW”’s interest and I also deeply loved another woman, which played on my mind and left me emotionally distracted. “SW” knew an unusual amount of detail about me, and appeared annoyed with me when I was on my phone searching for news related to the US official government statements against me. I perceived she was irritated when I wasn’t giving her my full attention.
81. I felt there was a risk my location would be revealed and that she might act unpredictably if she believed I was rejecting her. During that night and again in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions. Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions.
82. I would later discover that she had collected dozens of photos of me in the weeks before we even met. Her recent FLIKR photo account was filled with pages and pages of photos of me and no other person.
83. In the morning she went out to pick up breakfast for us. After enjoying breakfast together, I left her home on good terms. At no stage when I was with her did she express that I had disrespected her in any way or acted contrary to her wishes other than to not be interested in her enough to pay her attention above my security situation or attempts to sleep. She accompanied me to the train station on her bicycle and we kissed each other goodbye. She asked that I call her so we could see each other again and I said I would. She called the next day or the day after. We made friendly small talk but we were quickly disconnected due to a failing mobile connection. I did not call her back due to problems obtaining telephone credit (as a result of my bank cards being blocked) and the pressing security situation.
84. I spoke to her next on Friday 20 August, after a Swedish friend said that he had heard that “SW” was at the hospital and that she wanted to talk to me. As I had not called her back, and she had previously gone through considerable effort to attract my attention, I was initially concerned that she may have attempted self-harm in order to force me to pay attention to her. So I called her. She said she was at a hospital and asked me to come down to meet her to test myself for sexually transmitted diseases so she would not have to worry while she was waiting for her own test results (HIV, for instance, needs months to show up).
85. But I was busy that day attempting to deal with the escalating political and legal threats against me from the Pentagon. I said I couldn’t do anything until the next day (a Saturday). She said that it was normal in Sweden to go to the police to get advice about STDs and that if I didn’t come down to the hospital she would go to the police to ask whether I could be forced to get tested. I told her I found her mention of police strange and threatening. She stated that she was only concerned about the tests and that it had no concealed meaning. I agreed to take the test out of goodwill and to reassure her, although I told her I could not do it until the following day, Saturday.
86. We were in agreement and arranged to meet the following day in the nearby park around lunchtime when I would have time to get tested. She said she was fine and seemed at ease.
87. You can imagine my disbelief when I woke the next morning to the news that I had been arrested in my absence for ”rape” and that police were ”hunting” all over Stockholm for me.
88. Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her. This is also shown by text messages “SW” sent to her friends during the course of the evening I was at her home and during that week, which the Swedish police collected from her phone. Although the prosecutor has fought for years to prevent me, the public and the courts from seeing them, my lawyers were permitted to see them at the police station and were able to note down a number of them, including:
— On 14August 2010 “SW” sent the following text to a friend: I want him. I want him. Followed by several more of similar content (all referring to me) in the lead-up to the events in question (13:05); — On 17 August “SW” wrote that we had long foreplay, but nothing happened (01:14); then it got better (05:15); — On 17 August, after all sex had occurred, “SW” wrote to a friend that it ”turned out all right” other than STD/pregnancy risk (10:29); — On 20 August “SW”, while at the police station, wrote that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06); — On 21 August “SW” wrote that she “did not want to accuse” Julian Assange “for anything”, (07:27); and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic)” (22:25); — On 23 August “AA” (the other woman whose case was dropped in August 2015) wrote to “SW” that it was important that she went public with her story so that they could form public opinion for their case (06:43);
— On 23 August “SW” wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing (16:02); — On 26 August “AA” wrote to “SW” that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper (13:3; — On 28 August “AA” wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid (12:53); and “SW” wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid (15:59);
89. These text messages clearly show what really happened between “SW” and me. It is clearly consensual sex between adults. The communication between “AA” and “SW” later sadly speaks for itself.
90. The prosecutor’s allegation in the extradition proceeding was reported to be that one of these sexual interactions started the next morning while “SW” was asleep (in the same bed after a night of consensual intercourse) and that when she woke up she consented to the intercourse in question, but for the first few moments was not theoretically capable of consent due to sleep.
91. This is false. I was certain “SW” was not asleep. I was also certain she expressly consented to unprotected sex before such intercourse started. This is also evidenced by “SW”’s own text messages. For example, my lawyers refer me to the following text message to her friend:
— 17 August, 08:42 am: JA did not want to use a condom.
92. Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep.
— 18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep.

IV. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

93. Although the police initially opened an investigation into ‘rape’ in relation to woman AA, there was no allegation in her testimony that she had been raped. She expressed in her statement to the police that she consented to sex and subsequently tweeted on 22 April in 2013 “ I have not been raped”.
94. The press was immediately and unlawfully informed that there was a warrant for my arrest for what was reported as the “rape of two” women. The prosecutor unlawfully, and without any subsequent explanation or remedy, immediately confirmed to the press that there was a live warrant for my arrest. The prosecutor’s breach triggered an avalanche of news reports. Within days there were millions of references online which associated my name with the word ‘rape’.
95. Immediately the police accusations were used to attack WikiLeaks’ work and my reputation as its publisher. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates celebrated the news of my ‘rape’ arrest warrant with a smile, telling reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Various twitter accounts officially associated with the Pentagon spread descriptions of me as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”. This slander was then used as a means to attack my organization’s reputation.
96. I canceled my other appointments and remained in Sweden. I gave an interview to the police on 30 August 2010 in relation to the only remaining allegation. The Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues submitted to the Supreme Court of the UK states:
“On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation,attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA’s report. Heanswered all questions asked of him.”
97. I was highly concerned for my personal safety and the safety of WikiLeaks’ operations while I remained in Sweden, but I stayed for another five weeks after the ‘preliminary investigation’ was initiated in order to clear my name and to cooperate with the police investigation. Only after I had obtained an assurance from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I could leave the jurisdiction did I prepare to leave the country
98. Less than 24 hours after the warrant for my arrest was issued, the chief prosecutor of Stockholm was appointed to take over the investigation and canceled the arrest warrant, stating “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.
99. Shortly after prosecutor Marianne Ny had resurrected the “SW” allegation, the head of the Swedish military intelligence service (“MUST”) published an article ‘WikiLeaks is a threat to our soldiers’. I became increasingly concerned about Sweden’s close relationship to the US government in military and intelligence matters.
100. Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a pattern of lawless conduct where US government interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because they believed the exchanges were likely unlawful.
101. The US diplomatic cables, reports by major human rights organizations, and the UN’s own findings made me aware that Sweden had been complicit in torture as a result of its participation in secret CIA renditions from 2001 through to at least 2006 (which I would subsequently reveal). The rendition of the Swedish political refugees Agiza and Alzery resulted in strong condemnation by the UN Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others. There is still complete impunity for the officers of the Swedish state involved and their US counterparts. No charges have been laid although the complicity of the Swedish state has been well established in successful civil litigation. I subsequently learned that Sweden was partly implicated in CIA renditions of its own citizens from Djibouti in 2013. My Swedish lawyer Thomas Olsson represents one of the rendered.
102. Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) had requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organization. The Australian intelligence organization (ASIO) responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010.
103. On 29 November 2010 WikiLeaks commenced publishing Cablegate, 251,287 US State Department diplomatic cables. The classified diplomatic dispatches related to every country
in the world. In terms of content, it was the largest set of classified documents ever to be published.
104. The next day State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that “we are investigating aggressively” into WikiLeaks and that a State Department “War Room”, which is different from the Pentagon “War Room”, had been set up.
105. On 30 November 2010, two days after WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate, Interpol, at the request of Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, issued a Red Notice to 188 countries for my arrest in relation to the Swedish “preliminary investigation” (for which no charges or indictment existed). At the request of the Swedish prosecutor Interpol also made the notice public.
106. The Swedish prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant on 2 December 2010 to the UK which was processed by the UK Serious Organised Crimes Agency (SOCA).
107. I lost my freedom on 7 December 2010, the day after UK authorities certified the Swedish extradition warrant. I appeared at the police station, having made a prior appointment. I was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the highest security unit of Wandsworth prison, the CSU.
108. The day after I was imprisoned, the UK newspaper The Independent reported that US and Swedish officials had entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in connection with the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks.
109. After ten days, the UK courts found that I should be released on bail. In response the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny instructed her representatives in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to appeal to keep me in prison, but the UK courts found her request to be excessive.
110. I was moved to house arrest after providing UK authorities with £340,000 (nearly half a million dollars) and having an electronic monitoring device fitted to my ankle.
111. On 13 January 2011 the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wrote to Marianne Ny, assuring her “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request”.
112. I was forced to meet with police for 551 days in a row. I continued publishing regardless.
113. I applied for asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 June 2012. The embassy was then surrounded by police at an admitted cost to the UK taxpayer of £12.6 million by October 2015.
114. On 28 October 2014, the UK Minister of State of Hugo Swire, told Parliament that “if she [Marianne Ny] wishes to travel here to question Mr. Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that, indeed, we would actively welcome it.”
115. On 14 November 2014 I submitted my case to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD).
116. On 20 November 2014 Sweden’s Court of Appeal (Svea) found that the Swedish prosecutor had breached her duty by failing to accept my statement.
117. On 12 October 2015 the UK announced that it was removing the overt police around the embassy as it was “no longer proportionate”.
118. On 14 October 2015 London police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe told the Standard that the visible police were being removed from the embassy encirclement as “it seems a disproportionate response” and “we think the public are not necessarily supportive of it.”
119. Subsequently (6 Feb 2016) the London Times would report that the removal of overt police was also due to “fears that officers of the diplomatic protection group standing guard were thought to resemble jailers” during the UNWGAD determination. However the 12 October statement reveals that the “overt” police had in fact been replaced with a “strengthened” “covert plan”.
120. On 5 February 2016 UNWGAD found that I have been unlawfully deprived of my liberty since 7 December 2010 as a result of the actions of the Swedish prosecutor.
Answer to subsequent questions:
You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights. I refer you to my statement where all these questions were answered.'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'From his refuge in the Ecuador Embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange addressed a press conference of his supporters in Berlin on Tuesday, amid speculation that he planned to reveal potentially threats to America.

But early into his speech, Assange said that while more revelations were to come, he would not be making any major announcements, asserting that there would be no point in dropping making such revelations at a time when most Americans would be sleeping.

“Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House. Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail,there is, however, another country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America’s legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That country is, of course, Israel,” said Assange.

The assessment of Israel and what damage it does regarding what most Americans would regard as genuine national interests is most definitely not reported, revealing once again that what is not written is every bit as important as what is. I would note how what has recently happened right in front of us relating to Israel is apparently not considered fit to print and will never appear on any disapproving editorial page. Just this week the Senate unanimously passed an Anti-Semitism Awareness bill and also by a 99 to zero vote renewed and strengthened sanctions against Iran, which could wreck the one year old anti-nuclear weapon proliferation agreement with that country.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime.

And it is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.'

I believe some folks have been suspicious because Assange doesn't regularly expose Israel..._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'....According to a new release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him in London, as had happened in 44 other extradition cases between Sweden and Britain.

Ny wrote to the CPS: “We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order … and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. This would affect not only us but you too in a significant way.”

Three days later, suggesting that legal concerns were far from anyone’s mind, she emailed the CPS again: “I am sorry this came as a [bad] surprise… I hope I didn’t ruin your weekend.”

In a similar vein, proving that this was about politics, not the law, the chief CPS lawyer handling the case in the UK, had earlier written to the Swedish prosecutors: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”

In December 2013, the unnamed CPS lawyer again wrote to Ny: “I do not consider costs are a relevant factor in this matter.” This was at a time when it had been revealed that the policing of Assange’s detention in the embassy had cost Britain at that point £3.8 million. In another email from the CPS, it was noted: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”.....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The “judge” who dismissed Assange’s case yesterday was “Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom”, wife to Tory peer, former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip Lord James Arbuthnot. Not to mention Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arbuthnot was naturally Eton educated, the son of Major Sir John Sinclair Wemyss Arbuthnot. Of course Lady Arbuthnot’s children were all sent to Eton too.

At the first hearing, I was stunned by reports of completely inappropriate comments by Lady Arbuthnot, including responding to representations about Assange’s health by the comment that medical care is available in Wandsworth prison. As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset. She also remarked – and repeats it in yesterday’s judgement – that Assange has access to fresh air through the Embassy’s balcony. That is simply untrue. The “balcony” floor is 3 feet by 20 inches and gives no opportunity to exercise. Julian does not have access to it. He is confined to a small area within the Embassy, which still has to function. The balcony is off the Ambassador’s office. He has been given access to it on average about twice a year. But Lady Arbuthnot showed a very selective attitude to getting at the truth.

The truth is that just last week the evidence was published which inarguably proves that the questioning for sexual allegations was only ever a charade to secure Assange in custody for deportation to the US, to face charges for publishing the USA’s dirty secrets. In 2013 Sweden wished to drop the investigation and the arrest warrant, and was subject to strong persuasion from the Crown Prosecution Service to maintain the warrant. This included emails from the CPS telling the Swedes “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most tellingly of all “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” That last exposes the entire pretence is just one sentence.

It is worth noting it was not the servile UK corporate media, but the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi and the Italian newspaper Le Repubblica which obtained these emails through dogged freedom of information requests and High Court proceedings. These revealed the quite stunning truth that the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence, with only accidental copies of a few emails surviving to be produced in response to the FOI request.

The CPS emails devastate the official charade, which is precisely that this is just a normal extradition case. Furthermore it is admitted at para 43 of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement that the Crown Prosecution Service actively referred the Swedish authorities to Wikileaks activities in the united States as a reason not to drop the arrest warrant, a fact which the UK mainstream media has still never reported and which obviates “Lady” Arbuthnot’s trite observation that there is no evidence that Sweden would have extradited Assange to the USA.

Perhaps most stunning of all “Lady” Arbuthnot opines at para 44 that “I cannot determine from the extracts of correspondence whether the lawyer in the extradition unit acted inappropriately” in preventng the Swedes from dropping the case and referring them to Wikileaks activities vis a vis the USA. Whereas in fact:

a) It provides irrefutable proof that this was never about the frankly unbelievable Swedish sexual allegations, which were always just a pretext for getting Assange into custody over Wikileaks’ publications

b) The reason she only has “extracts” of the correspondence is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as openly admitted in the High Court, tried to destroy all this correspondence, itself an illegal act. Arbuthnot gives them the benefit of their illegality, against all legal principle.

“Lady” Arbuthnot takes it upon herself to contradict the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, every one of whose members is a much more eminent lawyer than “Lady” Arbuthnot. The UK had of course every opportunity to raise the points made by Lady Arbuthnot in its appeal to the UN, which appeal also failed. “Lady” Arbuthnot’s attempt to undermine a judgement by going back and disputing the actual facts of the case, with no opportunity to answer, is, to say the least, a creative piece of judicial process. But as with her failure to pursue the CPS’ destruction of evidence, it is just an example of her most obvious bias.

“Lady” Arbuthnot set out with one clear and evident purpose, to assist the Crown.

“Lady” Arbuthnot has perhaps performed an unwitting public service by the brazen nature of her partiality, which exposes beyond refutation the charade of legal process behind the effort to arrest Assange, in reality over the publication of USA secrets. The second half of Para 57 of the judgement sets out how, following his arrest for “jumping bail”, the American extradition request on espionage charges will be handled.

'..Less than 48 hours after a UK judge ruled against Julian Assange’s legal team in their efforts to free him from the Ecuadoran embassy, The Intercept published a disingenuous and sloppy character assassination against the Wikileaks Editor-In-Chief.

The timing of the article’s publication acted to brutally counter growing support for Assange that arose in the wake of a clearly unjust UK ruling that dashed hopes of his imminent freedom. Essentially, the publication of the smear attempted to deflect attention from the revelation of corruption in the ongoing detention of Assange, and to assassinate his character in the process.

The Intercept’s decision to publish the article at such a time unfortunately serves to characterize the outlet as a servant of the same US deep state that The Intercept has gained a reputation for – at least in theory – opposing....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Check some of Artbuthnot's (sounds like a very very 'Landed Gentry' name) other cases @TonyGosling @georgegalloway @21wire

Jo Cox MP death: Thomas Mair in court on murder charge

18 June 2016

Image caption Thomas Mair faced four charges when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court

The man charged with the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox has appeared in court and been remanded in custody.

Thomas Mair gave his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Mrs Cox, 41, was shot and stabbed in Birstall, West Yorkshire, on Thursday.

Members of her family visited the scene on Saturday to read floral tributes and thank gathered crowds for their support.

Speaking in the village's market square Kim Leadbeater, Mrs Cox's sister, described the MP as "perfect".
Image copyright Brendan Cox
Image caption Labour MP Jo Cox died after the attack in her constituency in Birstall

Ms Leadbeater said the tributes paid to her sister had "genuinely made a difference" and helped the family through some "dark times".

"I could not watch the overwhelming outpouring of love without speaking on behalf of Jo," she said.

"Jo would want us to focus on that which unites us not which divides us. She will live on through good people in the world."

Mrs Cox, who was married with two children, was about to attend a constituency surgery when she was killed.

A 77-year-old man, who came to her aid, was also injured and remains in a stable condition in hospital.
Image copyright PA
Image caption Jo Cox's parents and sister said they were genuinely appreciative of the tributes paid to the MP

Mr Mair, 52, faces charges of murder, grievous bodily harm, possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence and possession of an offensive weapon.

The defendant, who was wearing a grey tracksuit, refused to give his correct name and did not reply when asked to confirm his address and date of birth in court earlier.

He did not enter a plea and is next due to appear for a bail application hearing at the Old Bailey on Monday.

The venue chosen for Thomas Mair's first court appearance was the most important magistrates' court in London. Deputy Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot was sitting.

Reporters from the broadcasters and Sunday newspapers and from overseas packed the press seats at the back.

As is almost always the case, the hearing was brief, but it had a key moment of drama - the moment the man in the dock was asked his name.

He stood, as asked, for what is normally one of the most mundane parts of the proceedings. Not this time.

"My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain," he said.

Asked to repeat it, he said the same thing. Then he fell silent until he was taken from the dock and driven off to prison.

Vigils were held across the country on Friday evening in memory of Mrs Cox. Earlier in the day, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn visited Mrs Cox's Batley and Spen constituency.

The prime minister said the country was "rightly shocked" by her death, while the Labour leader described the former aid worker as "an exceptional, wonderful, very talented woman."

Parliament will be recalled on Monday to allow MPs to pay further tributes.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn laid flowers in tribute to Jo Cox in her constituency of Batley and Spen

A fundraising campaign started on Friday by friends and family of Mrs Cox has already raised more than £500,000.

The funds will support three causes her husband, Brendan Cox, said were close to her heart, including the The Royal Voluntary Service, HOPE not hate and The White Helmets.

• Lord Janner finally appears at Westminster Magistrates' Court
• He spends 59 seconds in courtroom before being released on bail
• Ex-Labour peer 'confused and frail' as he faces 22 abuse charges
• It comes after judge dismisses video link bid and threatens arrest
• Legal team claims it is 'barbaric' to force 87-year-old to attend court
• Lord Greville Janner picture gallery: A career in images

Summary

After weeks of legal wrangling, Lord Janner has appeared in court in person for the first time over 22 historic child sex abuse charges.

The peer's attendance at Westminster Magistrates' Court lasted 59 seconds and comes after numerous attempts by his defence lawyers - three court hearings over a week - to avoid him having to turn up.

Using a walking stick, he appeared confused and frail as he entered the courtroom, saying: "Oooh, this is wonderful."

Janner was released on unconditional bail, with the next hearing to be held at Southwark Crown Court on September 1.

Thanks for following our live updates from the court - you can read back over how it unfolded below.

Lord Janner arrives home in north London
15:29
Lord Janner arrives home

After his afternoon in court, Lord Janner has arrived back at his north London home. He is pictured here being led by the arm by his daughter, Marion.

Lord Janner arrives back home in LondonLord Janner arrives back home in London
15:16
'He looked confused, vulnerable and frail'

Martin Evans, the Telegraph's crime correspondent, reports on a day of high drama at Westminster Magistrates' Court:

Quote So after a week of legal wrangling, which included four court hearings, Lord Janner, the former Labour Peer has appeared in magistrates' court to be charged with 22 child sex offences.

Any doubt that may have existed about the authenticity of his severe dementia was dispersed instantly when he popped his head around the side door of Court One of Westminster Magistrates looking confused, vulnerable and frail.

Clearly unaware of where he was or what was going on, Lord Janner laughed and said: "Ooh lovely", as he was helped to his seat by his daughter.

Deputy Chief Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, asked if he was Lord Janner to which he replied "Yes" in a loud clear voice, before informing him that the case was now being sent to crown court for trial.

The hearing lasted just 59 seconds and then his daughter helped him from the the court telling him: "Come on dad, let's go and have a nice ice cream."

After Lord Janner had left the court, the clerk read out the 22 charges one by one. As in line with all serious criminal cases, the matter now passes to Crown Court with the next hearing due to take place at Southwark Crown Court on September 1.

However, unlike today's committal hearing Lord Janner will not necessarily be required to attend. A judge have to decide whether the 87-year-old is fit to stand trial and if he is not, whether a trial of fact is an appropriate course of action.

In such an event a jury will decide if he was responsible for the actions with which he was charged. There is no finding of guilt and no punishment is handed down.
15:10
Sketch of Lord Janner in court

Here's an artist's sketch of Lord Janner's brief court appearance this afternoon, as he sits in the well of the court flanked by his daughter, Marion, and a carer.

Lord Janner was escorted from the courtroom by a minder and his daughter, who called him "Daddy".

All three of them then left the courtroom through the internal exit, avoiding the public section of the building.
14:23
'Oooh, this is wonderful', says Lord Janner

Here's a bit more detail on what happened during the brief court hearing.

Dressed in a soiled bottle green cardigan, blue t-shirt and navy trousers, Lord Janner used a walking stick as he entered the courtroom and appeared confused as he said: "Oooh, this is wonderful."

He sat at a desk near the entrance used for vulnerable witnesses and looked around the room before being asked if he was Lord Janner.

He replied: "Yes."
14:18
Date of next court appearance

After Janner was released on unconditional bail, the court heard the next hearing to be held at Southwark Crown Court on September 1.
14:12
Court clerk reads out 22 charges

The court clerk is now reading out details of the 22 child sex abuse charges Lord Janner is facing.
14:09
'Let's go home and have a nice ice cream'

Lord Janner was in court for just 59 seconds before the District Judge told him he was being released on unconditional bail.

He left the court with his daughter who said: "Come on Dad, let's go home and have a nice ice cream."

14:05
Lord Janner laughs and says 'ooh lovely'

Here's more from Martin Evans, who reports how Lord Janner said "ooh lovely" as he walked into the packed court.

14:04
Lord Janner leaves court

Lord Janner has left the courtroom after just seconds.
14:03
Lord Janner arrives in court

Lord Janner has arrived in Court One at Westminster Magistrates' Court. He walked into the courtroom and took a seat at a desk.
14:00
Public gallery packed to see Lord Janner

Martin Evans, in Court One, reports that the press benches and public gallery are packed ahead of the appearance of Lord Janner

He is due to enter the courtroom via a side entrance in just a few moments. Lord Janner will not enter the dock, instead standing in the well of the court. The charges are expected to be read out after Lord Janner has left the room.
13:57
Lord Janner to appear in court imminently

Lawyers and journalists are back in Court One at Westminster Magistrates' Court as they await the imminent arrival of Deputy Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot - and Lord Janner.
13:52
More footage of Lord Janner's arrival

13:45
First images of Lord Janner arriving

Here are the first images of the former Labour peer - wearing a baseball cap, polo shirt, cardigan and casual jacket - arriving at court in a Toyota Avensis accompanied in the back of the car by an unidentified woman who held his hand.

Lord Janner's car is surrounded by press as he arrives at court Lord Janner's car is surrounded by press as he arrives at court Photo: R.M.T. /WENN.com

Here's footage of Lord Janner’s car - surrounded by photographers in the middle of the road - as it arrived at court a few moments ago.

13:34
Breaking: Lord Janner arrives at court

Lord Janner has arrived at Westminster Magistrates' Court for his 2pm hearing. He was driven into a side entrance in a silver car as the vehicle was mobbed by photographers.
12.44
Lunchtime recap: What we know so far

His lawyer Paul Ozin had argued that he should be allowed to appear via video link at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

But after District Judge Emma Arbuthnot expressed impatience with the legal wrangling over the issue - even warning he could face arrest - Mr Ozin told the court: "I can confirm that Lord Janner will attend this court at 2 o'clock this afternoon."

In response, the judge said that if the hearing became too much for Janner, she would "immediately abort" and continue in his absence.

His legal team had been insisting he was too ill to attend in person because of his advanced dementia.

Stay with us for the latest updates this afternoon.

It has been ruled that Lord Janner is too ill to stand trial Lord Janner is due in court at 2pm Photo: Rex
12:30
Hearing will be abandoned if Janner 'distressed'

District Judge Emma Arbuthnot confirms that, if Lord Janner shows signs of extreme distress, she will abandon the hearing immediately.

Earl of Cardigan declared ‘mentally unfit’ by judge and taken to hospital by ambulance after appearing in court accused of theft and criminal damage

David Brudenell-Bruce accused of causing £66 damage to his neighbor's pheasant feeders
Declared unfit to plead by judge at Salisbury Magistrates' Court today

By Suzannah Hills

Published: 05:59 AEDT, 5 July 2012

e-mail

An aristocrat was deemed mentally unfit to face charges of theft and criminal damage today and taken from court to hospital by ambulance.

David Brudenell-Bruce, the 8th Earl of Cardigan, was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly damaging pheasant feeders, stealing a battery and an electrical power unit.

Brudenell-Bruce, 59, is alleged to have caused £66 damage to a number of pheasant feeders belonging to James Tilly.
Paramedics escort Lord Cardigan, pictured in a blue and white striped shirt, out of Salisbury Magistrate Court to take him to hospital after a judge declared him 'unfit to plead'

Paramedics escort Lord Cardigan, pictured in a blue and white striped shirt, out of Salisbury Magistrate Court to take him to hospital after a judge declared him 'unfit to plead'

David Brudenell-Bruce
The Earl of Cardigan

The Earl of Cardigan is accused of causing £66 pounds worth of damage to his neighbour's pheasant feeders

The Earl appeared at Salisbury Magistrates' Court today accused of damaging and stealing property belonging to a neighbour.

The Earl looked dishevelled in the dock, and appeared to be in some considerable distress.
RELATED ARTICLES

Previous
1
Next

What would he be like if he lost? French athlete attacks...
Downton it ain't! What happens when hard-up aristos open...

Share this article
Share

Miss Marie-Claire Amuah, defending, told the court: 'My client is unfit to plead today. I am certainly unable to take instruction from him.'

Brudenell-Bruce was declared unfit to plead by a special District Judge brought in from London.

Jennie Bradley, a court assessment officer and psychiatric nurse, said: 'He is psychologically unwell, but does not need to be detained under the mental health act or any an enforced admission to hospital.'

She added that his risk of committing suicide was 'fairly low at the moment.'

Judge Emma Arbuthnot declared the multi-millionaire unfit to plead and adjourned the case so he could visit a nearby hospital.

Charges against me false, says Mallya as extradition trial begins in UK court
PTI/ANI
Published Dec 4, 2017, 4:24 pm IST
Updated Dec 4, 2017, 5:20 pm IST
The trial opening was delayed as the courtroom had to be evacuated due to a fire alarm going off.
The 61-year-old tycoon looked relaxed as he was greeted by a swarm of cameras and reporters when he entered the court to stand trial on charges of fraud and money laundering related to his erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores. (Photo: File)
The 61-year-old tycoon looked relaxed as he was greeted by a swarm of cameras and reporters when he entered the court to stand trial on charges of fraud and money laundering related to his erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores. (Photo: File)

London: Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, out on a 650,000-pound bail bond following his arrest by Scotland Yard over fraud and money laundering charges, on Monday arrived at Westminster Magistrates' Court for the opening day of his extradition trial.

The 61-year-old tycoon looked relaxed as he was greeted by a swarm of cameras and reporters when he entered the court to stand trial on charges of fraud and money laundering related to his erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores.

The “judge” who dismissed Assange’s case yesterday was “Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom”, wife to Tory peer, former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip Lord James Arbuthnot. Not to mention Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arbuthnot was naturally Eton educated, the son of Major Sir John Sinclair Wemyss Arbuthnot. Of course Lady Arbuthnot’s children were all sent to Eton too.

At the first hearing, I was stunned by reports of completely inappropriate comments by Lady Arbuthnot, including responding to representations about Assange’s health by the comment that medical care is available in Wandsworth prison. As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset. She also remarked – and repeats it in yesterday’s judgement – that Assange has access to fresh air through the Embassy’s balcony. That is simply untrue. The “balcony” floor is 3 feet by 20 inches and gives no opportunity to exercise. Julian does not have access to it. He is confined to a small area within the Embassy, which still has to function. The balcony is off the Ambassador’s office. He has been given access to it on average about twice a year. But Lady Arbuthnot showed a very selective attitude to getting at the truth.

The truth is that just last week the evidence was published which inarguably proves that the questioning for sexual allegations was only ever a charade to secure Assange in custody for deportation to the US, to face charges for publishing the USA’s dirty secrets. In 2013 Sweden wished to drop the investigation and the arrest warrant, and was subject to strong persuasion from the Crown Prosecution Service to maintain the warrant. This included emails from the CPS telling the Swedes “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most tellingly of all “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” That last exposes the entire pretence is just one sentence.

It is worth noting it was not the servile UK corporate media, but the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi and the Italian newspaper Le Repubblica which obtained these emails through dogged freedom of information requests and High Court proceedings. These revealed the quite stunning truth that the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence, with only accidental copies of a few emails surviving to be produced in response to the FOI request.

The CPS emails devastate the official charade, which is precisely that this is just a normal extradition case. Furthermore it is admitted at para 43 of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement that the Crown Prosecution Service actively referred the Swedish authorities to Wikileaks activities in the united States as a reason not to drop the arrest warrant, a fact which the UK mainstream media has still never reported and which obviates “Lady” Arbuthnot’s trite observation that there is no evidence that Sweden would have extradited Assange to the USA.

Perhaps most stunning of all “Lady” Arbuthnot opines at para 44 that “I cannot determine from the extracts of correspondence whether the lawyer in the extradition unit acted inappropriately” in preventng the Swedes from dropping the case and referring them to Wikileaks activities vis a vis the USA. Whereas in fact:

a) It provides irrefutable proof that this was never about the frankly unbelievable Swedish sexual allegations, which were always just a pretext for getting Assange into custody over Wikileaks’ publications

b) The reason she only has “extracts” of the correspondence is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as openly admitted in the High Court, tried to destroy all this correspondence, itself an illegal act. Arbuthnot gives them the benefit of their illegality, against all legal principle.

“Lady” Arbuthnot takes it upon herself to contradict the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, every one of whose members is a much more eminent lawyer than “Lady” Arbuthnot. The UK had of course every opportunity to raise the points made by Lady Arbuthnot in its appeal to the UN, which appeal also failed. “Lady” Arbuthnot’s attempt to undermine a judgement by going back and disputing the actual facts of the case, with no opportunity to answer, is, to say the least, a creative piece of judicial process. But as with her failure to pursue the CPS’ destruction of evidence, it is just an example of her most obvious bias.

“Lady” Arbuthnot set out with one clear and evident purpose, to assist the Crown.

“Lady” Arbuthnot has perhaps performed an unwitting public service by the brazen nature of her partiality, which exposes beyond refutation the charade of legal process behind the effort to arrest Assange, in reality over the publication of USA secrets. The second half of Para 57 of the judgement sets out how, following his arrest for “jumping bail”, the American extradition request on espionage charges will be handled.

I should like to conclude that “Lady” Arbuthnot is a disgrace to the English justice system, but I fear she is rather typical of it. This intellectually corrupt, openly biased, callous Tory shill is rather a disgrace to humanity itself.

Bad news on Julian Assange front:
''Brian Eno & Yanis Varoufakis: Restore Julian Assange’s access to visitors and the outside world!':
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2018/03/28/brian-eno-yanis-varoufakis-r estore-julian-assanges-access-to-visitors-and-the-outside-world/
'It is with great concern that we heard that Julian Assange has lost access to the internet and the right to receive visitors at the Ecuadorian London Embassy. Only extraordinary pressure from the US and the Spanish governments can explain why Ecuador’s authorities should have taken such appalling steps in isolating Julian.
Only recently the government of Ecuador granted Julian citizenship and a diplomatic passport, in a bid to allow him safe passage from London. The UK government, under heavy pressure from the US government, refused to exploit this opportunity to end Julian’s detention – even after the Swedish authorities announced that no charges were, or would be, laid against him. Now, it seems that the Ecuadorian government that has been ‘leaned’ on mercilessly not only to stop attempting to provide Julian with a diplomatic route to safety but to drive him out of their London Embassy as well. In addition to US pressure, the Spanish government is also using its leverage over Ecuador to silence Julian’s criticisms of Madrid’s imprisonment of Catalan politicians and, in particular, of the arrest of Catalonia’s former premier in Germany.

Clearly, Ecuador’s government has been subjected to bullying over its decision to grant Julian asylum, support and, ultimately, diplomatic status. Naturally, Quito cannot admit that it is buckling under that pressure and it argues, in public, that Julian’s tweets over Catalonia are responsible for the decision to isolate him. Of course this is utterly unbelievable. Julian is now a citizen of Ecuador and as such enjoys the full protection of his freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of Ecuador. Additionally, the only reason Julian is holed up in Ecuador’s London Embassy – and why Ecuador gave him asylum in the first place – is precisely because he empowered whistleblowers’ freedom of expression and defended our right to know the truth about practices of the US and other Western powers that the latter found ‘inconvenient’ once exposed to the light of day.

A world in which whistleblowers are hounded, small countries are forced to violate their cherished principles, and politicians are jailed for pursuing peacefully their political agenda is a deeply troubled world – a world at odds with the one the liberal establishment in Europe and the United States proclaimed as its artifact since the end of the Cold War.

With these thoughts in mind we call upon all citizens of good conscience to send a message to the Ecuadorian authorities asking that Julian’s access to the outside world be restored and another, more pertinent one, to the British authorities to end Julian’s detention.'

Ecuador elected a new Presiident, Lenin Moreno, in 2017 (Rafael Correa was not eligible to stand, as he had done two terms).
Moreno soon showed he was more ‘US friendly’ than Correa. Though he had not expressed these tendencies previously, as soon as he won, they became apparent.
I had been apprehensive of Julian’s position since (and indeed before) the election, knowing Correa couldn’t stand again._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities.

On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

‘…Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa confirmed that Assange was still being denied Internet access while talks between the UK and Ecuador to decide his fate are still ongoing….’
‘…The action, according to Ecuador, was taken following Assange’s breach of a written agreement signed with the Ecuadorian government at the end of 2017, in which he vowed “not to send messages interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states,” the government said in a statement. “The Executive remains open to the possibility of further sanctions in cases of future breaches of the agreements by Assange.”
WikiLeaks believes that the fact their editor is being censored for what Ecuador is stating is “interfering in a state” is a huge step in the direction of “setting a precedent that would outlaw millions of Twitter users, all journalists and more human rights workers.”
Last year, Moreno vowed to stop Assange from revealing further corruption about the United States for the duration of his stay at the embassy, stating he would “gag Assange from revealing further corruption about the U.S….”

Please sign the Petition: ‘End Julian Assange’s isolation’: https://www.change.org/p/end-julian-assange-s-isolation_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The traitor Moreno has not just moved massively to the Right in Ecuador, he even says he hates the people that voted for him!
'Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno Moves Further Right With New Cabinet':
https://therealnews.com/stories/ecuadors-lenin-moreno-moves-further-ri ght-with-new-cabinet
'...I mean, Moreno was elected against Guillermo Lasso. Guillermo Lasso was the other candidate- very, very neoliberal. So, you know, Moreno wasn’t the perfect candidate. We always knew he wasn’t the perfect candidate, but facing the threat of a Lasso government, you know, we were all very anxious for his victory.

What Moreno did over the next few months is, little by little, have people from the Lasso camp, so, the losing camp, coming to his government. Now, he said this was all about “dialogue” and “being very inclusive.” That’s absolutely fine. I mean, being inclusive and dialogue is a good thing, but he actually said at one point that he was very- he actually, in a conversation with bankers, he said that he was very grateful for them. Those are the words he employed. He was very grateful for them not having voted for him and that he was very angry. He had actually used the word hatred, “I have a lot of hatred for the people who voted for me.”.....'

Have you ever heard the like? What a jerk! Julian Assange's days in the Embassy are certainly numbered.
Moreno is a traitor to the people, and should be impeached, and the election result set aside, with new elections held.
Moreno must be the most hated creature in Ecuador.
I hope there are Left-wing newspapers and other media to publicise what he has said and done._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'This is an expanding collection of declassified government documents on UK foreign policy. It includes: original government documents and transcripts, mainly from the National Archives in London; articles by Mark that analyse these declassified files; and online articles that cover such files.

What do these files and articles reveal?

These files highlight a range of British foreign policies since 1945, notably the UK involvement in coups, wars, covert operations, human rights abuses, arms exports, propaganda operations, and support for repressive regimes. They highlight much of the true nature of the UK’s role in the world, and especially reveal the actual interests and priorities of UK policy-makers – Prime Ministers, Ministers, ambassadors and civil servants. Click on the countries and themes below to view the files and articles.

The public’s right to know

The aim is to eventually build a fully comprehensive and searchable collection of declassified British documents and articles – to make these fully accessible to the public, which has a right to a better knowledge of what has been done, and is being done, in our name. In addition, the project seeks to encourage and support researchers to undertake work online and at the National Archives to publish more documents and articles on the reality of the UK’s role in the world.

Click on the following countries and themes......'

There follows a long list of countries, from Afghanistan to Yemen.
Promises to be a good source of info._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Here is a video of the Julian Assange vigil; Craig Murray (who came from Edinburgh specially for the vigil) speaks at 1:23:00:
'Live: ‘Free Assange’ demonstration on WikiLeaks’ founder sixth year since asylum application':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCJU8tUwP8&feature=youtu.be_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'As a military officer, I was trained to strictly observe security protocols. So when I first heard of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, I was instinctively critical. But upon reading his released documents, I saw how Julian gave people accurate insights into the inner workings of their own government.

Government “of the People” cannot flourish beneath a suffocating cloak of secrecy. And secrecy is often aimed, not at protecting us from enemies abroad, but at deceiving us about the dark machinations of our own government. The most consequential secrets are those used to conceal steps taken to establish predicates for future wars—unwarranted conflicts that seem to roll off an endless assembly line. No-fly zones, bombings, sanctions, false flags, blockades, mercenaries, bloodthirsty terrorists have all become stock in trade. Sanctions destabilize our targets through hunger and suffering. We terrorize and blow body parts into the streets like calling cards. Regime change is the end game; coups and assassinations are fair play.

Before Assange, those who “broke the code” and detected the Deep State’s patterns of misbehavior were labeled “conspiracy theorists” or worse. But with the advent of WikiLeaks, original, unchallenged source documents have proven our arguments, and revealed the truth to citizens.....'

Blimey! An honest Senator!_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum